Commonwealth v. Arrington
624 Pa. 506
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Appellant Lance Arrington was convicted of first-degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm for the 1996 killing of his girlfriend, Tondra Dennis, and sentenced to death; this Court affirmed.
- Evidence at trial was largely circumstantial: Tondra was shot with a 9mm near Appellant’s former residence; Appellant had prior violent convictions and a documented pattern of abusing and threatening intimate partners.
- Before the murder, Tondra reported abuse and death threats to parole and police authorities, produced photographs and voicemail threats, and Appellant was briefly detained on parole revocation charges but released when Tondra recanted out of fear.
- The Commonwealth introduced prior-bad-acts evidence about assaults, arson, and threats against other girlfriends to show a common scheme/plan of controlling partners through violence and to help identify the killer.
- Appellant raised multiple evidentiary and constitutional claims (sufficiency/weight of evidence, Rule 404(b) admission of other-crimes evidence, Wiretap Act suppression, prosecutorial misconduct, absence of a Simmons instruction, and statistical/racial challenges to Philadelphia’s death-penalty administration); ineffective-assistance claims were dismissed without prejudice to collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder and firearm possession | No proof Appellant had a gun or was the shooter; convictions insufficient | Circumstantial proof (threats, presence near scene, pattern) supports inference he obtained a gun, traveled to Philadelphia, shot Tondra, and discarded the weapon | Evidence sufficient; convictions affirmed |
| Admission of other-crimes evidence under Pa.R.E. 404(b) | Prior bad acts were propensity evidence and prejudicial; disallowed or should have been limited | Admissible to show common scheme/plan (pattern: monitoring, violence when relationships ended, threats to family); probative value outweighed prejudice and limiting instructions were given | Admission proper: similarities supported common-scheme theory and probative value exceeded prejudice |
| Wiretap Act suppression of recorded phone call | Recording by victim without prior consent violated 18 Pa.C.S. §§5701–5727; recording should be suppressed per DeBlase | Appellant implicitly consented during call or, in any event, recording was cumulative of admissible threat evidence (voicemails) so any error was harmless | Even assuming lack of prior consent, admission was harmless error because cumulative of other admissible threat evidence; no relief granted |
| Simmons instruction (parole ineligibility) at penalty phase | Jury should be instructed that life means no parole (Simmons/Shafer) when future dangerousness argued | Trial counsel expressly told jury life means life without parole; prosecutor placed dangerousness at issue but instruction not needed | No Simmons error: defense counsel’s argument adequately conveyed parole ineligibility; due process satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 580 Pa. 303, 860 A.2d 102 (Pa. 2004) (sufficiency review in capital cases)
- Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 500 Pa. 16, 454 A.2d 937 (Pa. 1982) (automatic appellate review in death-penalty cases)
- Commonwealth v. Houser, 610 Pa. 264, 18 A.3d 1128 (Pa. 2011) (elements and circumstantial proof of intent in homicide)
- Pa. R. Evid. 404(b) authorities: Commonwealth v. Miller, 541 Pa. 531, 664 A.2d 1310 (Pa. 1995) (admissibility of other-crimes evidence to show common scheme)
- Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 577 Pa. 421, 846 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2004) (limiting instructions weighed in admissibility of other-crimes evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 562 Pa. 498, 756 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2000) (admission of prior acts and limiting instructions)
- Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1994) (due process requires advising jury of parole ineligibility when future dangerousness is at issue)
- Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2001) (Simmons principle reiterated; instruction or argument required)
- McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1987) (statistical proof of systemic disparities insufficient to show discriminatory intent in a particular case)
- U.S. v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (U.S. 1979) (recordings by private parties and relation to exclusionary rules)