Commonwealth v. Akrie
159 A.3d 982
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- In May 2014 outside a Pittsburgh nightclub, Lawrence Akrie and his sisters became involved in a disturbance; police intervened and Akrie lunged at Officer Kenney during the incident.
- Akrie was charged with two counts of simple assault, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct; he was convicted on all counts and sentenced to two years’ probation.
- Akrie filed an internal complaint with the Pittsburgh Office of Municipal Investigations (OMI) alleging excessive force by Officer Kenney; OMI completed its investigation before trial.
- The Commonwealth moved in limine to exclude the contents and findings of the OMI report; the trial court allowed reference to the complaint and its timing but barred introduction of the report’s substance or findings.
- Akrie argued the OMI report was admissible to show Kenney’s bias/motive to fabricate and that exclusion violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights; he also argued the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it held exclusion of the OMI report was proper under Rule 403 and did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and the weight-of-the-evidence claim failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Akrie) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of OMI report findings | OMI findings show Kenney’s bias/motive to fabricate; relevant under Pa.R.E. 401 and not substantially prejudicial under Rule 403 | Report findings have minimal probative value for motive and would confuse the jury by shifting focus to excessive-force inquiry | Exclusion affirmed: probative value was slight and risk of confusing issues outweighed it under Rule 403 |
| Confrontation Clause challenge | Excluding OMI findings denied effective cross-examination of a witness and thus violated the Sixth Amendment | Trial court allowed cross-examination about the OMI complaint and Kenney’s motive; limits on marginal, confusing inquiry are permissible | No violation: defendant had opportunity to probe motive; court reasonably limited inquiry to avoid confusion |
| Weight of the evidence | Verdict was against the weight because police testimony was uncorroborated and officers had motive to tailor testimony | Trial court, having observed witness demeanor, found testimony credible and consistent; defendant’s trial testimony was also biased | No relief: verdict did not shock the court’s sense of justice; no abuse of discretion in denying new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ivy, 146 A.3d 241 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for evidentiary motions and admission of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Bozyk, 987 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2009) (limits on cross-examining police about misconduct; trial courts have wide latitude)
- Commonwealth v. Yohe, 79 A.3d 520 (Pa. 2013) (standards for Confrontation Clause and review)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 139 A.3d 208 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discussion of Confrontation Clause in state prosecutions)
- Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard for weight-of-the-evidence relief)
- Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 107 A.3d 206 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate review of trial court’s weight-of-the-evidence decision)
- Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254 (Pa. Super. 2012) (limited review where claim attacks witness credibility)
- Commonwealth v. O’Drain, 829 A.2d 316 (Pa. Super. 2003) (affirming evidentiary rulings on admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 402 A.2d 1019 (Pa. 1979) (distinguishable; post-trial discipline of officer depended on trial outcome)