Commonwealth v. Bennett
19 A.3d 541
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Bennett and four co-defendants were charged in 1990 with, among other offenses, first‑degree murder for a jewelry store robbery in which a shooter killed a clerk.
- Bennett allegedly contributed to the robbery as a participant with Wyatt, with another individual acting as look-out and two others entering the store.
- Bennett was convicted on conspiracy, instruments of crime, robbery, and first‑degree murder; others pled guilty or were tried separately.
- PCRA court found trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to jury instructions on vicarious liability for first‑degree murder and vacated Bennett’s first‑degree murder conviction, ordering a new trial on that charge.
- On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, holding the jury instructions were erroneous for not requiring specific intent to kill for accomplice/conspirator liability in first‑degree murder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to vicarious‑liability jury instructions. | Bennett argues counsel’s failure prejudiced him by allowing an erroneous charge. | Commonwealth contends instructions were clear when viewed with the murder charge. | Yes; the instructions were defective and prejudicial. |
| Whether the jury instructions properly instructed specific intent for first‑degree murder under accomplice/conspirator liability. | Bennett contends the charge failed to require showing he possessed the specific intent to kill. | Commonwealth contends overall charge was adequate. | No; the instructions did not clearly require Bennett’s specific intent to kill. |
| Whether the PCRA court properly vacated Bennett’s first‑degree murder conviction based on the defective instructions. | Bennett seeks relief based on ineffective assistance and instruction error. | Commonwealth argues no reversible error or ineffective assistance proven. | PCRA court’s relief affirmed; judgment vacated as to first‑degree murder and new trial ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wayne, 553 Pa. 614, 720 A.2d 456 (1998) (specific intent required for first‑degree murder in accomplice liability)
- Commonwealth v. Huffman, 536 Pa. 196, 638 A.2d 961 (1994) (instructions must clarify intent for first‑degree murder)
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 604 Pa. 386, 986 A.2d 84 (2009) (evaluate charge as a whole; require specific intent proof)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 603 Pa. 223, 983 A.2d 666 (2009) (PCRA standards; prejudice analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (2007) (PCRA review framework in Superior Court)
- Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 782 A.2d 1061 (Pa.Super.2001) (unpublished memorandum; related relief on similar instructions)