Com. v. Scutella, J.
Com. v. Scutella, J. No. 881 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 12, 2017Background
- On Oct. 15, 2014 police stopped Jhen Scutella’s truck after an altercation; officer Cousins observed two baggies of marijuana in the truck.
- The truck was searched and towed; shortly after, Scutella called police and reported the truck stolen. Officer Williams took the stolen-vehicle report.
- Williams questioned Scutella and warned him to be truthful; Williams’ and Scutella’s versions of events conflicted with Cousins’ account that police had attempted contact.
- Scutella was charged with false reports to law enforcement (and unsworn falsification, later acquitted by judgment of acquittal). A jury convicted him of false reports; sentence was 6–12 months.
- After sentence Scutella filed a PCRA petition; the trial court later reinstated his direct-appeal rights nunc pro tunc. On appeal he argued the trial court erred by excluding evidence of a prior civil-rights suit he had filed against Officer Cousins, and raised ineffective assistance (failure to argue entrapment) and Brady claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Scutella) | Defendant's Argument (Trial Court/Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in excluding evidence of Scutella’s prior civil-rights suit against Officer Cousins (to show bias) | Prior suit (settled) shows Cousins had motive/bias to fabricate or slant testimony; Cousins’ credibility was central to Commonwealth’s theory | Evidence was irrelevant/remote (suit ~5 years earlier, settled), Cousins’ bias not probative because Officer Williams—not Cousins—took the stolen-vehicle report; identity already admitted by Scutella | Reversed: exclusion was an abuse of discretion. Prior suit was relevant impeachment on bias; probative value outweighed danger of prejudice; remand for new trial. |
| Whether trial court should have granted PCRA relief for counsel’s failure to raise entrapment | Trial counsel ineffective for not asserting entrapment at trial | Commonwealth/trial court did not have to address on appeal after disposition of first issue | Not reached (court declined to address after remanding on first issue). |
| Whether Commonwealth violated Brady by failing to produce cruiser videotape of officer pulling behind vehicle | Missing video could exculpate/undermine Commonwealth’s account | Commonwealth failed to produce brief; trial court did not resolve on merits after first-issue disposition | Not reached (court did not address due to disposition on bias issue). |
Key Cases Cited
- Foley v. Commonwealth, 38 A.3d 882 (Pa. Super. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Cook v. Commonwealth, 952 A.2d 594 (Pa. 2008) (relevance as threshold for admissibility)
- Tyson v. Commonwealth, 119 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2015) (definition of relevance for evidence)
- Rouse v. Commonwealth, 782 A.2d 1041 (Pa. Super. 2001) (evidence of civil action against witness relevant to bias impeachment)
- Abel v. United States, 469 U.S. 45 (1984) (bias defined; proof of bias generally relevant for credibility assessment)
- Abu-Jamal v. Commonwealth, 555 A.2d 846 (Pa. 1989) (proof of bias is almost always relevant for jurors to assess witness credibility)