Com. v. Stephenson, D.
819 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- On July 7, 2009 a jitney driver was shot and killed during an attempted robbery; Stephenson (Appellant) and Travis Hawkins (co-defendant) were implicated.
- Physical evidence included a partial left palm print on the passenger window matching Stephenson.
- Several witnesses gave pretrial recorded statements implicating Stephenson; at trial some testified they could not recall events and their recorded statements were played.
- Hawkins invoked his Fifth Amendment right at trial; the Commonwealth played his recorded statement in which he described the robbery and said the gun discharged during a struggle.
- A jury convicted Stephenson of second-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy; he received life imprisonment for murder plus a consecutive term for conspiracy.
- Stephenson filed a PCRA petition raising ineffective-assistance claims (failure to request/ object to certain jury instructions, failure to object to admission of Hawkins’s statement) and an illegal-sentence/merger claim; the PCRA court denied relief and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Stephenson's Argument | Commonwealth's/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction re: prior inconsistent statements — failure to request limiting instruction | Inconsistent out-of-court witness statements (some unrecorded/unauthenticated) were used substantively; counsel should have sought instruction limiting unrecorded statements to impeachment only | Many inconsistent statements used at trial were recorded or otherwise admissible as substantive; the unrecorded remarks did not change the core substantive evidence placing Stephenson at passenger side during the robbery | No relief — Stephenson failed to show prejudice from counsel’s not requesting a limiting instruction |
| Sending a written note to jury during deliberations (Pa.R.Crim.P. 646(c)(4)) | Counsel should have objected when the court responded in writing to the jury’s question, which allegedly violated Rule 646 | The court’s note did not provide legal instruction; it simply reminded jurors to consider each count separately and invited a request for recharging; jurors were later recharged in court | No violation of Rule 646 and no prejudice; counsel not ineffective |
| Admission of Hawkins’s taped statement (Confrontation clause) | Counsel should have objected to admission of the co-defendant’s taped statement (Hawkins) as violating confrontation rights | Hawkins was unavailable, and counsel strategically declined to object because the statement helped the defense (it tended to portray Hawkins as acting alone) | Counsel’s decision was strategic and reasonable; no ineffective assistance |
| Illegal sentence / merger of conspiracy with second-degree murder | Because murder conviction could rest on a conspiracy theory, Stephenson argues conspiracy sentence must merge and consecutive sentence is illegal (Apprendi-based concern) | Conspiracy is a distinct offense from the substantive crime; robbery (not conspiracy) served as the underlying felony for second-degree murder; merger doctrine not triggered here | Sentence lawful; conspiracy did not merge with murder for sentencing purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lively, 610 A.2d 7 (Pa. 1992) (prior inconsistent statements admissible as substantive evidence only if they meet specified reliability criteria)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (standard for proving ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Brady, 741 A.2d 758 (Pa. Super. 1999) (PCRA standard for relief where counsel undermines truth-determining process)
- Commonwealth v. Kimball, 724 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 1999) (three-prong ineffective assistance test: arguable merit, no reasonable basis, prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Wells, 578 A.2d 27 (Pa. Super. 1990) (failure of any one prong negates need for evidentiary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Servich, 602 A.2d 1338 (Pa. Super. 1992) (merger principles for sentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Ritter, 615 A.2d 442 (Pa. Super. 1992) (conspiracy is distinct from substantive offense)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts that increase penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by a jury)
- Commonwealth v. Haughwout, 837 A.2d 480 (Pa. 2003) (Apprendi discussion in Pennsylvania context)