Com. v. Spivey, D.
3105 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- Derrick E. Spivey was convicted by jury of first-degree murder (Dec. 6, 2010) and sentenced to life; direct appeals were denied.
- Appellant filed a timely PCRA petition (Dec. 16, 2013) raising ineffective-assistance claims; the PCRA court dismissed without a hearing (Sept. 14, 2015).
- Key contested trial events: (1) Dr. Lieberman (a pathologist who did not perform the autopsy) testified using the autopsy file prepared by Dr. Preston; (2) the trial court’s jury instructions on credibility and first-degree murder; (3) Detective Pitts testified, before a sustained objection, that the police secured an arrest warrant after a “second” identifier (Rahman Isaac) corroborated Karefe Cover’s ID of Spivey.
- The Commonwealth’s identification case primarily relied on Karefe Cover’s eyewitness ID, which was impeached at trial and rested largely on Cover’s claim he saw a distinctive neck tattoo on the shooter.
- The Superior Court affirmed the PCRA dismissal as to the first three claims (no relief), but reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective-assistance claim related to defense counsel’s failure to move for a mistrial after Detective Pitts’ testimony about a second identifier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Spivey) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility / Confrontation: medical examiner testimony by doctor who did not perform autopsy | Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to Dr. Lieberman testifying about conclusions in Dr. Preston’s autopsy (Confrontation Clause violation) | Dr. Lieberman conducted an independent review (notes, photos, clothing) and offered his own opinions; experts may rely on others’ reports | No relief—testimony permissible and any hearsay not prejudicial |
| 2. Jury instruction on credibility/demeanor | Counsel ineffective for not objecting; instruction invited jury to rely on eye contact, body language without standards (vague) | Instruction framed common-sense methods jurors use to judge credibility; not vague or prejudicial | No relief—instruction proper as given |
| 3. Jury instruction defining first-degree murder/premeditation | Counsel ineffective for not objecting to an instruction stating premeditation need not require planning or particular length of time (alleged collapse of elements) | Instruction accurately stated law and mirrored standard jury instructions | No relief—instruction correct and standard |
| 4. Failure to move for mistrial after Detective Pitts’ statement that a second witness identified Spivey | Counsel ineffective for not moving for mistrial; statement materially bolstered an otherwise weak and impeached ID | Statement was isolated/ambiguous; court sustained objection and jurors were instructed to disregard | Remand for evidentiary hearing—statement clearly referenced a second identifier and prejudice arguable; PCRA dismissal reversed in part |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 570 A.2d 532 (Pa. Super. 1990) (experts may base opinions on autopsy reports prepared by others)
- Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 896 A.2d 508 (Pa. 2006) (cited approvingly for expert-opinion principles)
- Commonwealth v. Buford, 101 A.3d 1182 (Pa. Super. 2014) (examined Dr. Lieberman testifying from another ME’s autopsy file)
- Commonwealth v. Pursell, 724 A.2d 293 (Pa. 1999) (speculation insufficient to show prejudice for ineffective-assistance claim)
- Commonwealth v. Trivigno, 750 A.2d 243 (Pa. 2000) (counsel not ineffective for failing to anticipate a change in law in jury instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Cruz, 919 A.2d 279 (Pa. Super. 2007) (definition of first-degree murder requires specific intent to kill)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 993 A.2d 289 (Pa. Super. 2010) (when an arguable ineffective-assistance claim is raised, remand for evidentiary hearing is appropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Hanible, 30 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2011) (prejudice for failing to move for mistrial requires showing reasonable probability the motion would have been granted or issue successful on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 103 A.3d 344 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PCRA decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Steckley, 128 A.3d 826 (Pa. Super. 2015) (three-part ineffective-assistance test and burden on petitioner)