Commonwealth v. Cain
29 A.3d 3
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant Martin Cain was convicted by a jury of robbery, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, and terroristic threats.
- The incident occurred December 26, 2007, where Cain allegedly assaulted Derrick McGill, obtained McGill’s money and phone, and disappeared; McGill later reported to police.
- Cain’s post-trial motion challenged Judge Berry’s alleged conflict of interest due to ongoing investigation by the same office that prosecuted him.
- The trial court admitted testimony from Paul Bowell about a prior, similar act two weeks earlier in which Cain allegedly took a cell phone and threatened with a gun.
- The court gave a limiting instruction on Bowell’s testimony, and Cain argued the prior act evidence violated Rule 404(b).
- The court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Judge Berry’s impartiality was compromised and if recusal was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Berry’s impartiality was reasonably in doubt. | Cain contends the judge faced possible prosecution and impairment of impartiality. | Berry's impartiality not shown to be compromised. | Remand for evidentiary hearing on impartiality. |
| Whether Bowell’s testimony about a prior act was properly admitted as 404(b) evidence. | Cain argues lack of sufficient similarity and improper use. | Bowell testimony is admissible for common scheme under 404(b). | Admissible; no abuse of discretion in admitting Bowell testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 986 A.2d 84 (Pa. 2009) (standard for ruling on admissibility of evidence; abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Dozzo, 991 A.2d 898 (Pa.Super.2010) (similarity factors for 404(b) admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 671 A.2d 235 (Pa.Super.1996) (test for similarity in 404(b) analysis)
- Joseph v. Scranton Times L.P., 987 A.2d 633 (Pa.2009) (appearance of prejudice suffices to question impartiality)
- In Interest of McFall, 617 A.2d 707 (Pa.1992) (appearance of prejudice justifies new proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Goodman, 311 A.2d 652 (Pa.1973) (impartiality concerns and appearance of impropriety)
- Commonwealth v. Darush, 459 A.2d 727 (Pa.1983) (recusal when doubts about impartiality exist)
- Commonwealth v. Boyd, 835 A.2d 812 (Pa.Super.2003) (timeliness of recusal objections)
- In re Berry, 979 A.2d 991 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2009) (judge suspended; recusal considerations noted)