Com. v. Ogden, L.
3148 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 11, 2016Background
- On June 20, 2014, Louis Roderick Ogden’s 20‑year‑old niece, Rebecca Pisall, came to his home to buy heroin; Ogden’s daughter Mary handled the sale and returned a black bag to Ogden.
- After Rebecca complained the heroin bags were empty, Ogden produced a loaded gun and shot Rebecca in the forehead at point‑blank range; she died.
- Ogden called 911, admitted during the call and in a Mirandized statement that he shot Rebecca, claimed the shooting was accidental and said he had used ~20 heroin bags the prior night.
- At trial the Commonwealth presented eyewitness testimony, police testimony, forensic pathology, and Ogden’s statement; Ogden presented no evidence.
- A jury convicted Ogden of First‑Degree Murder; the court imposed mandatory life imprisonment. Ogden appealed, raising four issues: (1) failure to instruct on voluntary/involuntary intoxication; (2) sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree murder (premeditation/specific intent); (3) brevity of jury deliberations (10–11 minutes) warranting a new trial; (4) denial of motion to strike venire after a prospective juror’s prejudicial remark.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Ogden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Jury instruction on voluntary/involuntary intoxication | No instruction required because record lacked evidence Ogden was so intoxicated his faculties were overwhelmed. | Requested instructions were warranted by Ogden’s statement that he used ~20 heroin bags the prior night and by drug paraphernalia found at the house. | Court: No error. No evidence showed intoxication to the point of losing faculties; involuntary intoxication not shown. |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence for First‑Degree Murder (premeditation/specific intent) | Evidence (shooting to head at point‑blank range, post‑shooting threats, Ogden’s admission) supports finding intent and malice. | Argued Commonwealth failed to prove premeditation and specific intent to kill. | Court: Evidence sufficient. Jury could infer intent from use of deadly weapon on vital part and Ogden’s admissions/behavior. |
| 3. Short jury deliberation time (10–11 minutes) as basis for new trial | Not raised by Commonwealth. | Brief deliberations indicate possible bias or inadequate consideration given severity of charge. | Court: No abuse of discretion. Short deliberation not presumptively improper given straightforward evidence and jury instructions; verdict unanimous. |
| 4. Motion to strike entire venire after juror remark (“if he made it this far, I’d figure he’d have to be guilty”) | No basis to strike absent evidence that biased venireperson sat or that seated jurors were biased. | The comment tainted the venire and polluted jury pool, warranting striking the panel. | Court: Denial proper. No showing the speaker was seated, nor that any empaneled juror exhibited bias; motion speculative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Padilla, 80 A.3d 1238 (Pa. 2013) (voluntary intoxication instruction only where intoxication deprived accused of faculties)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 82 A.3d 943 (Pa. 2013) (intent to kill may be inferred from use of deadly weapon on vital part)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 701 A.2d 190 (Pa. 1997) (point‑blank shooting supports first‑degree murder inference)
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sufficiency review standard)
- Commonwealth v. Penn, 439 A.2d 1154 (Pa. 1982) (jury deliberation length generally within trial court’s discretion)