Commonwealth v. Christine
78 A.3d 1
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- On June 8, 2009, an inmate-on-inmate attack occurred in Northampton County Prison cell B‑2; victim Thomas Missero suffered cuts to his neck and ear from a modified razor blade found on the floor, while a different shank was later found concealed in appellant Jacob Christine’s bed.
- Christine contended he acted in self‑defense: he claimed Missero entered with a razor, attacked him, dropped the razor, and Christine unintentionally cut Missero while disarming him; Missero maintained he was attacked and saw the razor on the ground afterward.
- A three‑day jury trial resulted in convictions for aggravated assault and recklessly endangering another person (REAP); attempted homicide acquittal; Christine received an aggregate 9–20 year term.
- Christine sought to cross‑examine Missero about a May 1, 2010 simple‑assault/REAP conviction (post‑incident) to show the victim’s violent propensities and sought exclusion of the shank found in his bed (the Commonwealth conceded it was not the weapon used).
- A divided appellate court produced competing opinions: the plurality would affirm (admitting the shank and excluding evidence of the subsequent conviction was proper; sentencing issue not reviewable), while a dissent would reverse for a new trial because admitting the shank was erroneous and not harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Christine) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excluding cross‑examination about victim’s later simple‑assault conviction | The subsequent conviction shows Missero’s violent propensities and would support self‑defense/aggressor theory | Subsequent conduct after the incident is not probative of the victim’s character at the time of the assault | Affirmed exclusion: subsequent conviction not sufficiently similar or temporally relevant to show propensities for the June 8, 2009 incident |
| Admissibility of shank found in Christine’s bed (not the reported weapon) | The shank is irrelevant and prejudicial because the assault involved a razor blade and razors were readily available in prison | The shank is relevant to show Christine possessed and could fashion a makeshift weapon similar in distinctive features (tape/cloth handle) | Affirmed admission (plurality): shank relevant as a weapon similar to the instrument used and probative value outweighed prejudice; dissent would exclude and find error not harmless |
| Sufficiency of basis to introduce victim’s convictions to show defendant’s knowledge of victim’s character (Amos foundation) | (Implied) Appellant sought to use convictions to show victim was aggressor without proving prior knowledge because convictions prove propensities | Commonwealth argued Amos requires foundation when used to prove defendant’s knowledge; here defendant pursued propensities ground not requiring knowledge but convictions were dissimilar/timely | Affirmed: Amos allows admission to show victim’s propensities without proof of defendant’s prior knowledge when convictions are similar and not too remote; here convictions were not similar/timely so exclusion proper |
| Discretionary‑aspect of sentence | Sentence is manifestly excessive given disputed facts and circumstances of prison altercation | Sentence within trial court’s discretion and sentencing issues not preserved for review as substantial question | Affirmed (no appellate review): appellant failed to raise a substantial question to permit review of discretionary aspects of sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Amos, 284 A.2d 748 (Pa. 1971) (victim’s criminal record may be admissible either to show defendant’s knowledge of victim’s quarrelsome character or to prove victim’s violent propensities)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 721 A.2d 344 (Pa. 1998) (general rule: weapon not linked to crime is inadmissible unless it shows accused possessed an implement suitable to commit the crime)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 58 A.3d 796 (Pa. Super. 2012) (evidence showing defendant had access to a weapon similar to the one used can be admissible even if not the exact weapon)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738 (Pa. 2012) (prior convictions sought to show propensity must be similar in nature and not too remote)
- Commonwealth v. Dillon, 598 A.2d 963 (Pa. 1991) (historical recognition that character evidence of decedent’s violent propensities may be admissible when self‑defense is asserted)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 743 A.2d 489 (Pa. Super. 1999) (weapon in police custody at time of crime was irrelevant and prejudicial where it could not show defendant possessed means to commit the crime)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review: admissibility of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)