Commonwealth v. Davido, T., Aplt
106 A.3d 611
| Pa. | 2014Background
- In May 2000, police responded to an anonymous 911 call reporting a man beating a woman at 26 Hager Street; upon arrival they found the house silent, entered through an unsecured window, and located Angelina Taylor unconscious with severe head and other injuries; she died shortly thereafter.
- Appellant Tedor Davido was arrested, gave statements admitting strikes and strangulation, and was charged with murder and rape; forensic evidence included extensive head trauma, vaginal injuries, and semen in the victim.
- At trial the Commonwealth’s forensic pathologist, Dr. Wayne Ross, testified the cause of death was blunt force trauma with diffuse axonal/shearing injury; defense pathologist Dr. John Shane disputed the shearing/force conclusions and suggested a subarachnoid hemorrhage possibly from preexisting injury.
- The jury convicted Davido of first-degree murder and rape; at the penalty phase Davido waived counsel and mitigation evidence and elected to proceed pro se; the jury found one statutory aggravator and imposed death.
- On direct appeal Davido’s claims were largely rejected; he then filed a PCRA petition raising ineffective-assistance, Brady, suppression, and related claims; the PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Davido’s Argument | Commonwealth’s / State Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of warrantless entry/search of residence | Entry was unlawful: anonymous 911 + officers’ “gut feeling” insufficient; evidence should be suppressed as fruit of poisonous tree | Entry justified by exigent-circumstances (rescue/emergency aid) and probable cause; alternatively evidence admissible under inevitable discovery/protective-sweep doctrines | Entry was objectively reasonable under the emergency-aid exigency; counsel not ineffective for failing to move to suppress; PCRA denial affirmed |
| Admissibility & reliability of Dr. Ross’s testimony | Ross’s G-force / shearing opinions were speculative, beyond report, and possibly false (aneurysm alternative); counsel ineffective for not litigating more aggressively | Ross’s opinions were based on first-hand autopsy findings (intact Circle of Willis, diffuse hemorrhage, contusions); defense had and used rebuttal expert; no ineffectiveness shown | Court rejected claims; Ross’s testimony admissible and not shown false or unreliable; trial counsel reasonably rebutted with Dr. Shane |
| Failure to pursue heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter / mitigation evidence | Counsel failed to investigate and present stronger provocation/mental-health mitigation that could have supported voluntary manslaughter or affected penalty waiver | Counsel pursued lack-of-specific-intent strategy, elicited provocation evidence, and reasonably avoided witnesses or experts that would open damaging doors; appellant repeatedly refused mitigation presentation | PCRA court credited strategic reasons; no ineffective assistance — counsel reasonably pursued alternative strategy; claim denied |
| Brady / nondisclosure of jailhouse informants’ mental-health records | Commonwealth withheld Kauffman/Brown treatment records that could impeach witnesses and would have affected outcome | Records either not in Commonwealth possession or not material; cross-examination at trial adequately impeached them; no Brady prejudice shown | No Brady violation proven; records not shown to impair witnesses’ ability to perceive/recall; claim denied |
| Competency & validity of penalty-phase waiver (and counsel’s duty) | Waiver of counsel and mitigation was not knowing/voluntary; counsel should have secured competency evaluation before colloquy | Court conducted thorough colloquy; counsel requested a continuance/evaluation (denied); appellant was competent and repeatedly maintained waiver | Waiver was previously litigated and found valid; counsel reasonably sought evaluation and did not perform deficiently; claim denied |
| PCRA hearing procedure / rebuttal experts & discovery | PCRA court prevented useful rebuttal experts, struck reports, denied production of originals, and permitted Ross to ambush rebuttal testimony | Ross was a listed potential witness and his autopsy report was available; copies of exhibits were provided; proposed rebuttal testimony would be cumulative; court acted within discretion | Court did not abuse discretion: rebuttal proffers were cumulative/limited value; copies provided; no due-process violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (Fourth Amendment does not bar warrantless entry when officers reasonably believe a person inside needs immediate aid)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine governs derivative evidence from unlawful searches)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (Brady material includes impeachment evidence; materiality standard for nondisclosure)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine permits admission when evidence would have been discovered absent constitutional violation)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (habeas review under §2254(d)(1) is limited to the state-court record)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (ineffective-assistance claims generally deferred to collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 616 Pa. 164, 47 A.3d 63 (2012) (standard of review for PCRA rulings; credibility findings binding when supported)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence material to guilt or punishment)