Com. v. Smith, D.
Com. v. Smith, D. No. 2927 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- Davis Smith was convicted in 2001 of second-degree murder, robbery, and burglary for the 2000 killing of Jose Matos; he received life without parole. His direct appeals concluded in 2003 and his judgment became final March 1, 2004.
- Smith filed a fourth PCRA petition pro se on February 5, 2015, invoking the "after-discovered facts" exception to the one-year PCRA timeliness bar based on alleged flaws in fire-science evidence used at trial.
- At trial the Commonwealth introduced fire-investigation evidence (including a "negative corpus" approach) and evidence about a burned-out van owned by the victim; Smith argued the arson evidence supported an inference of guilt for the murder.
- Smith asserted he only learned of the unreliability of the fire-science methodology (citing the release of James Hugney and revisions to NFPA 921) from a news report on January 24, 2015 and thus filed within 60 days under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) and (2).
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely, concluding Smith failed to plead or prove that the allegedly new facts were unknown and could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the petition plainly untimely and that Smith did not satisfy the new-facts/due-diligence requirements for the statutory timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith's PCRA petition was timely under §9545(b)(1)(ii) (new facts) | Smith: He learned in Jan 2015 that fire-investigation methods (negative corpus) were discredited (via Hugney release/NFPA 921), so he filed within 60 days. | Commonwealth/PCRA court: The claim is untimely; advances in fire science predated 2015 and Smith failed to show the facts were unknown or that he exercised due diligence. | Held: Untimely. Smith did not plead or prove the new-facts exception; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits. |
| Whether advances in fire science render the trial expert testimony unreliable and require relief | Smith: Modern fire-science developments undermine the negative-corpus methodology used against him, so the evidence was unreliable and violative of due process. | Commonwealth: Even if methodology has been criticized, Smith did not satisfy timeliness/due-diligence thresholds needed to invoke review. | Held: Court did not reach merits because petition was time-barred; no relief granted. |
| Whether Smith was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the fire-science claim | Smith: Alleged newly discovered facts warrant a hearing. | Commonwealth: Procedural timeliness defect forecloses entitlement to a hearing. | Held: No hearing; petition dismissed as untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Abu–Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263 (Pa. 2008) (PCRA timeliness requirements are jurisdictional and must be strictly construed)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§9545(b)(1)(ii) requires proof that facts were unknown and could not have been discovered with due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) ("facts" for §9545(b)(1)(ii) cannot be merely public-record statistics or a newly willing source)
- Commonwealth v. Garcia, 23 A.3d 1059 (Pa. Super. 2011) (courts lack jurisdiction to address merits of untimely PCRA petitions)
- Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Benfield, 140 F.3d 915 (11th Cir. 1998) (earlier federal recognition that certain "negative corpus" fire-science testimony must satisfy Daubert and may be excluded)