Com. v. Nunez, J.
3141 EDA 2014
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 15, 2016Background
- Victim Kimberly Cardona was found beaten and with a slashed throat in woods off Lanze Road on July 5, 2012; death ruled a homicide from blunt and sharp force trauma.
- Jonathan Nunez was identified by phone records, witnesses, and a confession; he admitted beating the victim, returning to slash her throat, and pouring bleach on the body.
- Police executed warrants for Nunez’s residence, vehicle, person, and medical records; evidence seized included blood‑stained linens, bleach, clothing, and vehicle blood samples; cell records showed internet searches about semen, fingerprints, and blood.
- Nunez was convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder and sentenced to life without parole; post‑sentence motions were denied.
- Nunez’s appeal raised (1) sufficiency of evidence (intent given intoxication), (2) weight of the evidence (intoxication mitigation), (3) suppression of warrant‑obtained evidence, and (4) admissibility of cellular internet searches; court affirmed conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Nunez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: specific intent for 1st‑degree murder | Evidence (confession, injuries, post‑crime concealment, search queries) proves intent beyond reasonable doubt | Intoxication from alcohol/synthetic marijuana prevented specific intent to kill | Affirmed — evidence sufficient for specific intent; confession and circumstantial evidence persuasive |
| Weight of the evidence (new trial) | Jury properly weighed evidence and instructions on voluntary intoxication were given | Intoxication/voluntary drug use negated ability to form specific intent; verdict shocks conscience | Denied — no abuse of discretion; jury credibility determinations stand |
| Suppression of evidence obtained by warrants | Warrants supported by totality of circumstances (victim injuries, phone records, witness IDs, vehicle recovery, vehicle blood) | Affidavits lacked probable cause to support warrants | Appeal limited by incomplete record (affidavits not in appellate record); trial court findings supported probable cause; no relief |
| Admissibility of cell internet searches | Searches were probative of state of mind and provided timeline and nexus to concealment of evidence | Searches were cumulative, inflammatory, prejudicial with little probative value | Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion; searches relevant to intent/timeline |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sanford, 863 A.2d 428 (Pa. 2004) (sufficiency review considers whole trial record even if some evidence later excluded)
- Commonwealth v. Mullins, 918 A.2d 82 (Pa. 2007) (double jeopardy bars retrial when conviction overturned for insufficient evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 990 A.2d 1158 (Pa. 2010) (standard for sufficiency review; circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standards and limits for weight‑of‑the‑evidence claims)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for probable cause in search warrant affidavits)
- Commonwealth v. Janda, 14 A.3d 147 (Pa. Super. 2011) (probable cause and search warrant requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Caple, 121 A.3d 511 (Pa. Super. 2015) (deference to issuing authority’s probable cause determination)
- Commonwealth v. Hoover, 107 A.3d 723 (Pa. 2014) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Blakely, 946 A.2d 645 (Pa. 2008) (intoxication evidence generally for fact‑finder to evaluate)
- Commonwealth v. Kleinicke, 895 A.2d 562 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellant’s responsibility to ensure complete record for appellate review)