Commonwealth v. Castro
55 A.3d 1242
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Castro was convicted at bench trial for conspiracy and possession with intent to possess a controlled substance; the court found guilty on conspiracy and knowing and intentional possession, but not guilty of possession with intent to distribute.
- Post-sentence, Castro sought relief based on an after-discovered-evidence theory tied to allegations of police corruption involving Officer Richard Cujdik.
- A March 30, 2009 Philadelphia Daily News article described corruption allegations against Cujdik and others, including falsified warrant claims and misconduct during a 2007 raid.
- The article suggested videos contradicting Cujdik’s warrant affidavit and alleged misconduct surrounding CI-142, the informant used in Castro’s case.
- The trial court denied relief, and a prior panel vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing; en banc resolution ultimately remanded for a hearing.
- The majority remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if after-discovered evidence warranted a new trial; the dissent would deny remand, finding no producible/admissible evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a newspaper article can basis for remand for after-discovered evidence | Castro argues article substantiates misconduct might yield different verdict | Commonwealth contends article is mere allegations, not producible/admissible evidence | Remand granted for evidentiary hearing on after-discovered evidence |
| Whether the article provides producible and admissible evidence under Chamberlain | Content is independently verifiable and not just impeachment | Article itself is hearsay and not admissible evidence | Castro satisfied producible/admissible criteria for remand |
| Whether four-part after-discovered evidence test is met | Evidence could not have been discovered pre-trial and would likely yield a different verdict | Evidence is solely impeachment and speculative as to admissible proof | All four criteria analyzed; remand for hearing ordered |
| Whether the trial court or appellate panel properly limited the inquiry | Remand necessary to probe underlying corruption evidence | Remand would be fishing expedition and improper without producible evidence | Majority allowed evidentiary hearing; dissent disagreed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2008) (four-part test for after-discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Padillas, 997 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2010) (preponderance standard for evidentiary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 939 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 2007) (newspaper article can basis for remand when corroborated)
- Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2011) (distinguishes Rivera regarding corruption articles)
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (produibility/admissibility requirement for new evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Boyle, 533 Pa. 360 (1993) (standard for after-discovered evidence requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 518 Pa. 15 (1988) (after-discovered evidence framework and standards)
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 503 Pa. 624 (1983) (producibility/admissibility considerations for new evidence)
- Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 46 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (arrest/cause requirements in evidentiary analysis)