Com. v. Osborne, F.
2432 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 26, 2016Background
- Furman Osborne was convicted by jury of first-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime for the May 27, 2004 killing of Steven Kennedy and sentenced to life imprisonment; direct appeal and post-conviction proceedings followed.
- Osborne filed a PCRA petition raising ~20 claims (many undeveloped) alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and that the trial record was altered/incomplete.
- Key trial evidence: witnesses placed Osborne at or near the scene shortly after multiple gunshots; the victim was found on June 6, 2004 with multiple gunshot wounds; Osborne had access to firearms and had prior military weapons training.
- Trial court admitted a photo of the victim with his children; Osborne claimed admission was inflammatory and prejudicial and argued trial counsel should have objected.
- The PCRA court denied relief (no hearing); Superior Court reviewed the denial, found most claims waived or meritless, concluded the photo admission was erroneous but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Osborne) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate counsel ineffective for failing to challenge alleged alterations/incompleteness of trial record | Appellate counsel should have pursued claim that stenographer deleted remarks/audio and that military records were missing | Record was previously litigated on direct appeal; appellate counsel investigated and stenographer said record was complete; claim is cognizable as previously litigated and waived under PCRA | Denied — claim previously litigated/not cognizable under PCRA; no relief |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for not challenging jury instruction that date in indictment is non‑essential | Osborne argued date was essential and defense prepared around that date; instruction denied notice/due process | Instruction follows SSJI (Crim) 3.19 and law: date is not an essential element; Commonwealth requested instruction after defense closing misstated law | Denied — no merit; date is not an essential element |
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to admission of photo of victim with children (inflammatory evidence) | Photo was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial and counsel should have objected/moved for mistrial | Trial court has discretion on photos; purpose was to show victim was "a life in being" though witnesses and coroner testimony already established that fact; even if error, evidence of guilt was overwhelming | Photo admission erroneous but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no relief |
| Multiple claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness (prior bad acts questions, prosecutorial misconduct in questioning/closing, failure to investigate witnesses, suppression/stipulation of weapon) | Counsel failed to object to questions about military history/prior bad acts, failed to investigate named witnesses or obtain records, and failed to move to suppress evidence | Many claims were undeveloped or waived for failure to specify trial record references or provide affidavits showing favorable testimony; evidence of access to weapons was relevant; no factual offer to prove prejudice or better alternatives | Denied — claims waived or meritless; no evidentiary hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 139 A.3d 1257 (Pa. 2016) (PCRA ineffective-assistance test requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (previously litigated claims and cumulative-error framework)
- Commonwealth v. Einhorn, 911 A.2d 960 (Pa. Super. 2006) (date in indictment not essential element for homicide)
- Commonwealth v. Rivers, 644 A.2d 710 (Pa. 1994) (admissibility of photographs; inflammatory effect balancing)
- Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d 155 (Pa. 1978) (photographs of victim/family irrelevant to guilt are inadmissible; harmless-error standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (constitutional standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Douglas, 645 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1994) (Pennsylvania formulation of Strickland test)