Com. v. Small, E.
Com. v. Small, E. No. 245 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 21, 2017Background
- Eric Eugene Small was convicted of first-degree murder and related gun charges for the 2011 killing of William Price; multiple eyewitnesses placed Small with his arm around Price moments before a contact gunshot to Price's face.
- The defense at trial was that Pedro Espada — a friend of Small and the boyfriend of Kenosha Tyson (whose hair Price had pulled days earlier) — was the actual shooter; some witnesses at trial testified Espada admitted shooting Price.
- Small was sentenced to life; his direct appeal and Pennsylvania Supreme Court review were denied.
- On PCRA review, Tyson provided a notarized statement and testified that Espada told her he shot Price; the PCRA court found this newly discovered evidence and granted Small a new trial.
- The Commonwealth appealed the PCRA grant, arguing Tyson’s testimony was cumulative of prior evidence and therefore not proper newly discovered evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Small's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tyson's post-trial statement/testimony is "newly discovered evidence" under the PCRA | Tyson's testimony is cumulative/corroborative of trial testimony (Dotson, Lisa Small) and thus fails the PCRA test | Tyson's statement that Espada admitted shooting Price is newly available exculpatory evidence that would likely change the verdict | Reversed: Tyson's testimony is cumulative/corroborative and does not satisfy the PCRA's non-cumulative prong; PCRA court abused discretion in granting a new trial |
| Whether the PCRA court properly credited Tyson's recantation/"recantation of silence" | Her recantation is unreliable, inconsistent with prior statements, and serves mainly to impeach prior testimony | Tyson is credible and her statement supports defense theory that Espada was shooter | Court finds PCRA court erred: recantation is suspect, lacks corroboration, and PCRA court failed to properly assess credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Solano, 129 A.3d 1156 (Pa. 2015) (PCRA test for newly discovered evidence; four-prong conjunctive standard)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2008) (discussing requirements for after-discovered evidence under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1999) (recantation testimony is "extremely unreliable" and rarely affords relief)
- Commonwealth v. McCracken, 659 A.2d 541 (Pa. 1995) (upholding new trial where central witness recanted and was sole identifier of defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Padillas, 997 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2010) (new evidence that merely supports claims already litigated is likely cumulative)
- Commonwealth v. Woods, 575 A.2d 601 (Pa. Super. 1990) (hearsay declarations against penal interest admissible only with strong corroboration)
- Commonwealth v. Henry, 706 A.2d 313 (Pa. 1997) (trial court must judge credibility of recantation)
- Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 130 A.3d 697 (Pa. 2015) (Commonwealth may sustain murder conviction by wholly circumstantial evidence)