Com. v. Pankery, M.
946 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- On Dec. 27–31, 2013, three related incidents occurred near Studio 7 Bar in Philadelphia: a robbery, a homicide (Anthony Hinds), and a double shooting (one victim, Corey Wright, survived). Munir Pankery was arrested after identification and a search of his home recovered a firearm and clothing matching surveillance.
- Pankery gave multiple custodial statements after waiving Miranda rights: (1) morning admission to participating in the robbery and double shooting; (2) a later statement; and (3) a Homicide Division interaction in which he said he was present but someone else shot Hinds and drew a diagram.
- Commonwealth sought consolidation of related dockets; the trial court consolidated the two shooting cases but not the robbery docket (4330). Commonwealth moved to admit the robbery under the res gestae/Rule 404(b) theory; the court granted the motion.
- Pankery moved to suppress his statements as involuntary (claiming drug withdrawal), and moved to preclude admission of deceased-witness Corey Wright’s preliminary-hearing testimony (arguing lack of full and fair cross-examination because certain surveillance video and other impeachment material were not yet provided). The trial court denied suppression and preclusion motions.
- A jury convicted Pankery of second-degree murder (life without parole) and related firearm and assault offenses; the Superior Court affirmed, agreeing the robbery evidence was admissible to explain the investigation, the statements were voluntary, and Wright’s prior testimony was admissible because Pankery was not deprived of vital impeachment material.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Pankery's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of uncharged robbery (Rule 404(b)/res gestae) | Robbery evidence was part of the same sequence of events and necessary to explain the investigation, identity, and possession of the weapon. | Admission would unfairly prejudice Pankery because robbery was not consolidated and would be used as propensity evidence. | Evidence admitted under res gestae: probative value (explaining how arrest/evidence arose) outweighed prejudice. |
| Voluntariness of custodial statements | Statements were voluntary: Miranda warnings given; Pankery knowingly waived rights; detectives’ testimony corroborated lack of withdrawal signs. | Statements involuntary because Pankery was undergoing drug withdrawal and was coerced by delayed arraignment and repeated questioning. | Suppression denied: totality of circumstances showed voluntary waivers; expert on withdrawal relied on defendant’s history and did not overcome detectives’ credible testimony. |
| Admissibility of deceased witness’s preliminary-hearing testimony (Confrontation/Rule 804) | Wright was unavailable; prior testimony admissible because defense had adequate opportunity and motive to cross-examine at the preliminary hearing. | Wright’s testimony should be excluded because defense lacked a full and fair opportunity to impeach him at preliminary hearing — surveillance video and Pankery’s accusatory statements were not provided until after the hearing. | Preliminary-hearing testimony admitted: withheld materials were not “vital impeachment” (defense already knew its theory and discovery showed inconsistencies), and the video was available at trial. |
| Waiver/procedural 1925(b) issues | N/A (Commonwealth argued procedural posture appropriately handled) | Pankery sought remand to file a 1925(b) statement after missing deadline due to transcript delays. | Superior Court remanded, allowed filing; trial court’s supplemental opinion addressed merits; no reversible procedural error affecting outcomes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hairston v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 657 (Pa. 2014) (discussing res gestae exception to Rule 404(b))
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 896 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2006) (uncharged acts admissible when necessary to tell complete story)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion review for admission of other-bad-act evidence)
- In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (Pa. 2013) (limit appellate review of suppression to suppression record)
- Commonwealth v. Ogrod, 839 A.2d 294 (Pa. 2003) (voluntariness of confession judged by totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Leak, 22 A.3d 1036 (Pa. Super. 2011) (admissibility of prior testimony under Rule 804(b)(1) requires full and fair prior cross-examination; must show deprivation of vital impeachment evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 107 A.3d 54 (Pa. 2014) (mental/physical condition relevant to voluntariness review)