Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d 291

Background

Briggs was convicted by a Bradford County jury of two counts of first‑degree murder and one count of robbery, with a death judgment imposed in 2006 that this Court affirmed.
Facts show Briggs shot two Bradford County deputies during an attempted arrest at Briggs’ home; deputies were serving warrants for Briggs and for Duva, who hid in the basement.
Briggs allegedly confessed to cellmate Bradley Brown that he shot the deputies and later made a remorseful statement at the Bradford County Jail infirmary after arrest.
Ballistics linked the Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver to one deputy’s fatal wound and the Glock to another; seven .357 shell casings linked to the revolver were found on Briggs’ junkyard property.
Pretrial motions included four venue-change requests, suppression of the jailhouse statement, and a motion to remove the attorney general as prosecutor; the attorney general ultimately prosecuted under 71 P.S. § 732‑205(a)(3) with Downs’ former office remaining involved.
The death sentence was reviewed for trial errors, and the Court conducted statutory and constitutional review, concluding the sentence was supported by aggravating factors and not the product of improper influence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree murder	Commonwealth asserts evidence shows malice and intent beyond a reasonable doubt.	Briggs disputes sufficiency, arguing lack of direct evidence of intent to kill.	Sufficient evidence supported two counts of first‑degree murder.
Denial of change of venue	Commonwealth contends publicity was factual and diminishes with cooling-off period; venue not warranted.	Briggs claims publicity was pervasive and prejudicial, requiring change of venue.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; fair jury could be seated locally.
Suppression of jailhouse statement to troopers	Commonwealth argues statement was voluntary, not the product of interrogation after invocation of counsel.	Briggs claims Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by deliberate elicitation and improper interrogation.	Statement admissible; no Fifth Amendment custodial interrogation or deliberate elicitation; no Sixth Amendment violation.
Admission of Marcoccia testimony (prior bad acts)	Commonwealth contends 404(b) evidence is probative of sequence, access to firearms, and witness credibility under proper weighing.	Briggs contends the testimony is prejudicial and improper character evidence unrelated to the charges.	Admission was proper under 404(b) for relevant purposes; probative value outweighed prejudice.
Public trial and related voir dire procedures	Commonwealth maintained voir dire and lighting, including post‑bomb‑threat proceedings, sufficed to ensure impartial jurors.	Briggs contends limitations and venue shift impaired public trial rights.	Procedures, including voir dire and public access, complied with constitutional requirements; no violation.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Smith, 985 A.2d 886 (Pa. 2009) (sufficiency standard; appellate review for capital cases)
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (U.S. 1961) (voir dire and prejudicial publicity; impartial jury sufficiency)
In re Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (definition of interrogation; warnings for custodial statements)
Commonwealth v. Tharp, 574 Pa. 202 (Pa. 2003) (pretrial publicity and change of venue; presumption of prejudice requiring cooling-off)
Commonwealth v. Cohen, 489 Pa. 167 (Pa. 1980) (polling and change‑of‑venue analysis; irrevocable opinions)
Commonwealth v. Karenbauer, 552 Pa. 420 (Pa. 1998) (pretrial publicity and venue decisions; saturation standard)
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 581 Pa. 154 (Pa. 2004) (actual prejudice required for change of venue; saturating publicity exceptions)
Commonwealth v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (Sixth Amendment concerns and custodial interrogation rules)
Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (Sixth Amendment protection after right to counsel)
Commonwealth v. Eskridge, 529 Pa. 387 (Pa. 1992) (conflict of interest considerations for prosecutors)