Com. v. Walker, M., Com. v. Walker, M. No. 168 EDA 2016

In 2009, Malik Walker was convicted by jury of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and false identification after officers found 135 packets of crack cocaine in the front seat of the car he was driving and $1,040 on his person. He received 6–12 years’ imprisonment.
Walker did not file a direct appeal initially; a prior PCRA proceeding restored his right to appeal and this Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal in 2013.
In a subsequent PCRA petition (filed Dec. 9, 2013, amended), Walker alleged after-discovered evidence that Philadelphia Police Officer Michael Spicer—who testified as an expert at Walker’s trial about packaging and intent to distribute—had engaged in misconduct in other cases and that the District Attorney declined to prosecute Spicer-related matters.
Walker argued the Spicer revelations (publicized in Dec. 2012) would have undermined Spicer’s credibility and likely changed the verdict; relief was sought under the PCRA’s after-discovered evidence ground.
The PCRA court issued notice of intent to dismiss and ultimately denied the petition, holding the Spicer-related evidence was impeachment only and would not likely compel a different result; the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Walker's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether Walker is entitled to PCRA relief based on after-discovered evidence that Officer Spicer was involved in misconduct in other cases	Spicer’s misconduct revelations would have exposed his untrustworthiness, undermined his expert testimony on intent to deliver, and would likely have produced a different verdict	The Spicer information is newly available impeachment material only and does not show innocence or affect the evidence specific to Walker’s case; therefore it would not likely change the verdict	Denied — the court held the evidence is impeachment-only, not exculpatory, and would not likely compel a different result

Commonwealth v. Blackwell, 647 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. 1994) (standard of review for PCRA court findings)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 596 A.2d 840 (Pa. Super. 1991) (police expert may offer opinion on possession with intent and credibility is for the jury)
Commonwealth v. Ratsamy, 934 A.2d 1233 (Pa. 2007) (expert testimony may be considered when determining intent to deliver)
Commonwealth v. Kirkland, 831 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements and inference of intent to deliver)
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 645 A.2d 1366 (Pa. Super. 1994) (factors for intent to deliver include packaging and cash)
Commonwealth v. Bagley, 442 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 1982) (quantity, street value, packaging, and paraphernalia relevant to intent)
Commonwealth v. Gill, 415 A.2d 2 (Pa. Super. 1980) (large quantity can support inference of intent to deliver)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 340 A.2d 440 (Pa. 1975) (intent generally proved through circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 939 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 2007) (after-discovered evidence of lab/chain-of-custody misconduct can warrant relief when it calls the core evidentiary basis into question)