Com. v. Walker, G.
18 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- In 1995 Gary Walker shot and killed William Hamlin; Walker was convicted of first-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime in 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Direct appeal and state supreme court review concluded in 1999 with affirmance and denial of allowance of appeal.
- In March 2016 Walker filed his fourth PCRA petition, a habeas petition, and a motion for post-conviction DNA testing of clothing/evidence from the case.
- Walker argued his conviction rested on circumstantial evidence, an unreliable eyewitness, and alleged detective misconduct; he sought DNA testing to show a third-party perpetrator or to undermine the prosecution’s theory (e.g., range of fire).
- The PCRA court issued Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice and denied relief, finding Walker failed to meet the statutory threshold and prima facie requirements for post-conviction DNA testing under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543.1.
- This appeal challenges the denial of DNA testing and whether Walker made a prima facie showing warranting a hearing; the Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Walker's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walker's DNA testing motion was timely and met statutory threshold for post-conviction DNA testing | Walker argued testing clothing could reveal absence/presence of his or victim’s DNA or a third-party, so testing could show actual innocence or reasonable doubt | Commonwealth (and PCRA court) argued Walker failed to satisfy §9543.1(a)(2) threshold showing why testing wasn’t done at trial and failed to make a prima facie showing of actual innocence | Denied: Walker did not meet statutory threshold or prima facie standard; testing would not likely establish actual innocence |
| Whether absence of DNA would be material to premeditation or guilt | Walker contended absence of his DNA on victim’s clothing (or victim’s on his) could undermine prosecution’s theory and point to another shooter | Commonwealth argued absence of DNA is not dispositive and would not establish actual innocence or alter verdict | Denied: absence of DNA is not necessarily exculpatory; petitioner failed to show reasonable probability a jury would acquit |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on Walker's claims | Walker argued cumulative alleged misconduct and unreliable testimony warranted a hearing | Commonwealth maintained the claims lacked merit and statutory requirements were unmet, so no hearing required | Denied: no evidentiary hearing needed because claims lacked arguable merit and statutory criteria for testing were not satisfied |
| Whether ballistics or GSR testing are authorized under §9543.1 | Walker sought testing to address range and gun type issues | Commonwealth/PCRA court noted §9543.1 authorizes only DNA testing, not ballistics or gunshot residue testing | Denied as to non-DNA testing: statute does not authorize ballistics or GSR testing |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Commonwealth, 63 A.3d 1274 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review on PCRA appeal)
- Fiore v. Commonwealth, 780 A.2d 704 (Pa. Super. 2001) (elements for newly discovered exculpatory evidence under the PCRA)
- Heilman v. Commonwealth, 867 A.2d 542 (Pa. Super. 2005) (absence of DNA evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (actual innocence gateway standard: more likely than not no reasonable juror would convict)
- Baumhammers v. Commonwealth, 92 A.3d 708 (Pa. 2014) (no evidentiary hearing required where issues are meritless or no prejudice shown)