Commonwealth v. Burno
626 Pa. 30
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Burno was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death after a trial with extensive forensic and confessional evidence linking him to the killings.
- The Commonwealth presented eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence showing bullets from two guns matched Burno’s stolen weapon and that a blood trail connected Bethea to the crime scene.
- Burno gave multiple statements to police with varying accounts; a taped statement placed him at the scene involving a robbery, and jailhouse/other statements implicated him in both murders.
- Burno’s trial counsel did not object to certain portions of the prosecutor’s closing argument that commented on Burno’s character and implied guilt, which the trial court found to be prosecutorial misconduct with arguable merit under Strickland.
- The trial court vacated Burno’s judgment and granted a new trial on the sole basis of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the closing argument; the Commonwealth appealed and Burno cross-appealed on other issues.
- The majority reverses the new-trial order and defers Burno’s ineffectiveness claims to PCRA review, while remanding for resolution of preserved direct-appeal claims and dismissing Burno’s ineffectiveness claims without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to closing | Burno | Commonwealth | No merit; court found no actionable prejudice or arguable merit |
| Arguable merit of prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Burno | Commonwealth | Arguable merit not established for prejudice; arguments upheld as proper oratorical flair |
| Prejudice under Strickland/Pierce standard | Burno | Commonwealth | Insufficient prejudice shown; overwhelming evidence of guilt weakened any claimed prejudice |
| Deferral of ineffectiveness claims to PCRA under Holmes/Bomar/Grant | Burno | Commonwealth | Deferral appropriate; claims dismissed without prejudice to pursuit under PCRA |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (deferral of ineffectiveness claims to PCRA review)
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003) ( Bomar exception to Grant for direct-review claims prior to Holmes)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 621 Pa. 595, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (limits Bomar extensions; defers ineffectiveness claims to PCRA unless exceptions apply)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (U.S. 1984) (three-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 582 Pa. 207, 870 A.2d 822 (Pa. 2005) (prejudice standard in ineffectiveness review; not a harmless-error inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 618 Pa. 70, 54 A.3d 332 (Pa. 2012) (prosecutorial comments must be fair; context matters in closing arguments)
- Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 553 Pa. 485, 720 A.2d 79 (Pa. 1998) (prosecutor may comment on evidence; avoid improper personal belief in guilt)