Com. v. Nicholl, A., Jr.
241 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- Appellant Arthur Nicholl and co-defendant Jacob Ochoa were tried jointly for robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, theft by unlawful taking, and simple assault; Nicholl was convicted by a jury in October 2016.
- At trial Ochoa invoked his Fifth Amendment right and did not testify; after conviction, at his own sentencing Ochoa admitted guilt and stated Nicholl did not participate, and referenced an unnamed other conspirator.
- Nicholl was sentenced to consecutive prison terms for robbery and conspiracy on November 16, 2016.
- Nicholl filed a post-sentence motion seeking a new trial based on after-discovered evidence — Ochoa’s post-trial admissions — arguing the statements were exculpatory and unavailable before trial.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the statements met the first two prongs of the after-discovered evidence test but failed the third (would be used to impeach) and fourth (would not likely produce a different verdict) prongs.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial because Nicholl failed to show the evidence was not merely impeachment material or that it would likely change the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nicholl is entitled to a new trial based on Ochoa’s post-trial admissions as after-discovered evidence | Ochoa’s sentencing admission that he alone committed the robbery and absolved Nicholl is new, non-cumulative exculpatory evidence that could not have been obtained earlier and would likely change the verdict | The admission is self-serving, susceptible to impeachment, and would not likely produce a different outcome given other eyewitness and co-defendant testimony | Denied. The court found the statements could be used to impeach (fail 3rd prong) and were unlikely to change the verdict (fail 4th prong); no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Randolph, 873 A.2d 1277 (2005) (establishes four-prong after-discovered evidence test)
- Commonwealth v. McCracken, 659 A.2d 541 (1995) (discusses standards for newly discovered evidence relief)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270 (2008) (applies conjunctive four-prong test for after-discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Solano, 129 A.3d 1156 (2015) (notes failure of any one prong defeats relief)
- Gbur v. Golio, 932 A.2d 203 (2007) (standard of review for denial of new trial; abuse of discretion)