Commonwealth v. Cox, J., Aplt.
146 A.3d 221
| Pa. | 2016Background
- Jermont Cox participated in two murders (Watson and Stewart) and earlier confessed to a separate Davis murder; ballistics evidence at trial linked one Davis bullet to the Watson bullet, supporting guilt/identity evidence at the Watson/Stewart trial.
- At the 1995 trial the Commonwealth admitted ballistics evidence tying one Davis bullet to the Watson bullet; the second Davis bullet was deemed too damaged for comparison by the original examiner (Officer O’Hara).
- Cox was convicted of both murders and sentenced to death for the Stewart murder; direct appeal and initial PCRA litigation (raising failure to obtain independent ballistics testing) were unsuccessful.
- In 2013 the police reexamined the ballistics evidence and produced a new report concluding the second Davis bullet was NOT fired from the same gun as the Watson bullet.
- Cox filed a second PCRA petition within 60 days of the new report, arguing newly-discovered facts (the second bullet was from a different gun) entitled him to relief and that prior counsel was ineffective for not obtaining independent testing.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition as untimely under the PCRA time-bar exception analysis; the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, holding Cox failed to show due diligence necessary to invoke the timeliness exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cox’s 2013 PCRA petition satisfies §9545(b)(1)(ii) (newly discovered facts) to excuse timeliness | Cox: the April 30, 2013 ballistics report revealed a previously unknown fact (second Davis bullet from different firearm); he filed within 60 days, so exception applies | Commonwealth: Cox knew testing could be done earlier and did not pursue it; he failed to exercise due diligence to discover the fact earlier | Held: Exception not met — Cox failed to show due diligence; petition untimely, so court lacked jurisdiction to reach merits |
| Whether PCRA court conflated timeliness and merits standards (applying §9543 factors in §9545(b)(1)(ii) analysis) | Cox: PCRA court used §9543 after-discovered-evidence four-factor merits test improperly when assessing §9545(b)(1)(ii) timeliness | Commonwealth: Although test conflation occurred, Cox still fails due diligence prong so dismissal proper | Held: Court erred to conflate tests but error was harmless because Cox still failed §9545(b)(1)(ii) due diligence requirement |
| Whether the new ballistics report would, on the merits, entitle Cox to a new trial under §9543(a)(2)(vi) (after-discovered evidence) | Cox: the report undermines the Commonwealth’s proof linking Davis to Watson and would likely change outcome | Commonwealth: Evidence would be used mainly to impeach and is cumulative; even absent the Davis link, other evidence supports conviction | Held: Court did not reach full merits because petition was jurisdictionally untimely; PCRA court had concluded the evidence was impeachment-only and unlikely to change verdict |
| Whether Cox exercised due diligence in obtaining ballistics testing earlier | Cox: previously litigated testing claim in first PCRA and obtained federal discovery order later; filed promptly after 2013 report | Commonwealth: Cox knew testing was possible at trial and waited six years to pursue it; no explanation for delay or for not asking trial counsel to test | Held: Cox failed to explain long delay and thus did not demonstrate reasonable diligence required for §9545(b)(1)(ii) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 728 A.2d 923 (Pa. 1999) (discusses underlying convictions and prior appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (clarifies §9545(b)(1)(ii) requires only unknown facts and due diligence, not merits review)
- Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806 (Pa. 2004) (sets four-factor after-discovered-evidence test under §9543(a)(2)(vi))
- Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008) (explains due diligence requires timely pursuit when petitioner knew facts or files existed)
- Commonwealth v. Breakiron, 781 A.2d 94 (Pa. 2001) (requires evidence petitioner exercised due diligence to discover facts for §9545(b)(1)(ii))