Com. v. Wang, B.
3485 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- In May 2007 Sharon Lin died of a single gunshot to the head in the couple’s Philadelphia home. Police recovered a .9mm handgun from a nightstand drawer and ballistic evidence from the bed/room; medical examiner concluded wound not self-inflicted.
- Bin Wang gave a written statement and testified that Sharon took a gun and shot herself during a dispute; he was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime and sentenced to life imprisonment (trial 2008; convictions affirmed on direct appeal).
- On PCRA review, Wang alleged trial counsel was ineffective for multiple failures (not retaining a reconstruction expert, not calling three neighbor witnesses, not objecting to prior-bad-acts evidence, not requesting a missing-evidence instruction, not requesting a suicide instruction, cumulative error) and sought an evidentiary hearing; he later submitted an expert affidavit (Brent Turvey) supporting suicide.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing after issuing Rule 907 notices; it found counsel’s decisions had reasonable strategic bases, many proposed witnesses/evidence would be cumulative or not exculpatory, and no bad faith in loss of potential gunshot-residue evidence.
- The Superior Court affirmed, adopting the PCRA court’s March 20, 2017 opinion: Wang failed to meet the Pierce test for ineffective assistance on each claim, cumulative-error claim failed because individual claims lacked arguable merit, and no genuine issues warranted an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth / PCRA Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to retain/consult a forensic/reconstruction expert | Counsel should have expanded forensic investigation (e.g., Brent Turvey) — would have supported suicide and likely changed outcome | Counsel reasonably pursued a suicide theory and retained pathologist Dr. Hoyer; alternative experts are hindsight and would not likely produce a different result | Denied — counsel’s strategy had reasonable basis; no prejudice shown |
| Failure to call three neighbor witnesses (Davis, Fleming, Kern) | Their testimony would corroborate Wang’s suicide narrative and create reasonable doubt | Their statements were cumulative of testimony already before the jury (Wang’s own statements at scene and officers’ testimony that he shouted she shot herself) | Denied — testimony would be cumulative; no prejudice |
| Failure to object to admission of prior bad-act evidence | Counsel should have objected to hearsay/other-acts evidence about prior assaults on victim | Evidence was admissible under exceptions (motive, ill will, res gestae, chain of events); cautionary instruction not outcome-determinative | Denied — evidence properly admitted or harmless; no ineffectiveness |
| Failure to request "missing evidence" instruction (hands not bagged for GSR/SEM) | Police negligence deprived Wang of potentially exculpatory SEM/GSR evidence; counsel should have requested jury instruction | The unpreserved evidence was only "potentially useful" and Wang showed no bad faith by police (Youngblood/Snyder standard) | Denied — no due process violation absent bad faith; counsel not ineffective for raising meritless claim |
| Failure to request a jury instruction on suicide defense | A specific instruction would have clarified suicide theory and favored acquittal | Evidence did not rationally support suicide (no close-range signs; medical examiner’s opinion; weapon found in drawer; blood/spatter inconsistent) — instruction would mislead jury | Denied — no evidentiary basis for instruction; counsel not ineffective |
| Cumulative prejudice from multiple errors | Combined effect of alleged failures undermined confidence in verdict | Individual claims lacked arguable merit; where claims fail on merit, cumulative-error doctrine does not apply | Denied — no cumulative prejudice |
| Evidentiary hearing request | Hearing needed to examine witnesses and expert (Turvey) to create genuine issues of material fact | PCRA court can resolve claims from the record; no genuine material factual disputes warranting hearing | Denied — discretionary refusal not an abuse; record sufficient to decide claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 786 A.2d 203 (Pa. 2001) (framework for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (bad-faith requirement for due-process claim when potentially useful evidence is lost)
- Commonwealth v. Snyder, 963 A.2d 396 (Pa. 2009) (applying Youngblood to police failure to preserve evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa. 2008) (counsel not ineffective where witness testimony would be cumulative)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (cumulative-error principle limited where individual claims lack merit)