Com. v. Wright, T.
Com. v. Wright, T. No. 3106 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 4, 2017Background
- Terrell Wright was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, and possession of an instrument of crime for the fatal shooting of Jarrett Washington and wounding of Sherrieff Watkins; he received life without parole.
- Wright’s direct appeal and petition for allowance of appeal were denied; he then filed a timely PCRA petition alleging four instances of trial counsel ineffectiveness.
- The PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition; Wright appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court.
- The certified record initially lacked full trial transcripts and counsel failed to follow appellate/transcript ordering rules; the Superior Court later obtained the missing transcripts from the trial court.
- Wright’s claims challenged: (1) the trial court’s credibility/demeanor jury instruction; (2) portions of the prosecutor’s closing arguing about a “no-snitch” culture; (3) the prosecutor’s rhetorical, anecdotal statements about motive; and (4) failure to request a cautionary instruction regarding coerced/conflicted statements (this last claim lacked supporting authority).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wright) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Demeanor/credibility jury instruction | Instruction invited jurors to decide credibility based on personal dislike of witness demeanor, violating due process | Instruction tracked Pa. SSJI §4.17 and longstanding PA law permitting demeanor to inform credibility | Court held instruction was legally sound; counsel not ineffective for failing to object |
| 2. Prosecutor’s “clash of cultures / no-snitch” comment | Prosecutor created bias favoring police statements over recanted in-court testimony | Comments responded to record evidence and defense theory about recantation; permissible inference about fear/retaliation | Comments were fair response to evidence; no prosecutorial misconduct; counsel not ineffective |
| 3. Prosecutor’s anecdotal opinion on motive (personal sibling story) | Prosecutor’s personal anecdote and opinion prejudiced the jury, creating fixed bias | Statements were rhetorical flair and permissible argument tied to motive evidence; defense used similar family anecdotes | Not reversible misconduct; counsel not ineffective for not objecting |
| 4. Failure to request instruction re: coerced/tainted statements | Wright contends jury should have been instructed to treat statements made under coercion with great caution | Commonwealth: no authority supplied by Wright; instruction request unsupported | Claim waived for failure to cite legal authority; counsel not ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (ineffective-assistance standards and counsel not deficient for failing to raise meritless claims)
- Commonwealth v. Snoke, 580 A.2d 295 (Pa. 1990) (approving Pa. SSJI credibility instruction factors)
- Commonwealth v. Seese, 517 A.2d 920 (Pa. 1986) (demeanor and witness appearance relevant to credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 25 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2011) (standard for reversible prosecutorial comments: unavoidable prejudicial effect)
- Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellant must order/pay for transcripts; failure may waive claims)
- United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1980) (delineating due process concerns where demeanor evidence is critical)