Com. v. Ward, A.
664 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Appellant Archie Ward stabbed the victim (mother of his children) 49 times on November 9, 2007; she survived and Ward was arrested minutes later with blood on his clothes and his bloody knife nearby.
- A jury convicted Ward of attempted murder, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person, and possession of an instrument of crime on July 28, 2008.
- Ward was sentenced to 10–20 years’ imprisonment plus five years’ probation on September 25, 2008. An initial direct appeal was discontinued.
- Ward filed a timely pro se PCRA petition in 2009; counsel filed a Finley no‑merit letter and the PCRA court dismissed the petition in 2010.
- Ward later sought reinstatement of PCRA appellate rights nunc pro tunc; rights were reinstated in 2016 and he appealed the PCRA dismissal raising ineffective‑assistance claims (failure to request jury instructions on simple assault and diminished capacity; failure to move for mistrial after a juror expressed sympathy to the victim).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ward) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting a jury instruction on simple assault | Ward: evidence supported lesser‑included simple assault instruction | Counsel/Commonwealth: facts (49 stab wounds, serious injuries) supported aggravated assault/attempted murder, not simple assault | Denied — no evidentiary basis for simple assault instruction |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting a diminished‑capacity/voluntary‑intoxication instruction | Ward: was under influence of PCP; instruction could mitigate culpability | Counsel/Commonwealth: voluntary intoxication is not a defense to attempted murder and is limited in scope | Denied — voluntary intoxication unavailable for attempted murder; instruction would be meritless |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving for a mistrial after juror said, “I’m really sorry for what happened to you.” | Ward: juror sympathy required mistrial due to prejudicial ex parte contact | Counsel/Commonwealth: counsel made a strategic choice to proceed, discussed and obtained Ward’s agreement on record; no showing of prejudice given overwhelming evidence | Denied — strategic decision, no prejudice shown; mistrial not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Finley v. Pennsylvania, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw on collateral review)
- Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 1277 (Pa. 2016) (standard of review for PCRA determinations)
- Koehler v. Commonwealth, 36 A.3d 121 (Pa. 2012) (presumption of counsel effectiveness; Strickland framework)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for counsel ineffectiveness)
- Hairston v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 657 (Pa. 2014) (jury instructions must be supported by the evidence)
- Bardo v. Commonwealth, 105 A.3d 678 (Pa. 2014) (limits of voluntary‑intoxication/diminished capacity defense)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 730 A.2d 507 (Pa. Super. 1999) (voluntary intoxication not a defense to attempted murder)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 786 A.2d 961 (Pa. 2001) (ex parte juror contact viewed with disfavor; mistrial not automatic)
- Mosley v. Commonwealth, 637 A.2d 246 (Pa. 1993) (declining per se rule requiring juror disqualification for ex parte contact)
- Staton v. Commonwealth, 120 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2015) (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless claims)