Commonwealth v. Domek
167 A.3d 761
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On August 29, 2012 Appellant James Domek was processed into the Allegheny County Jail and became involved in a physical struggle with correctional officers; CO Bonenberger sustained a shoulder injury requiring surgery.
- Domek was tried by jury, convicted of one count of aggravated assault (18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(3)) for injuring Bonenberger, acquitted of two counts of assault by a prisoner (18 Pa.C.S. § 2703).
- At trial, the court instructed the jury that aggravated assault could be proven if the defendant acted "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly," although the statutory language for § 2702(a)(3) requires intentional or knowing conduct (no recklessness).
- Domek filed a PCRA petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the erroneous jury instruction; the PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing.
- The Superior Court reviewed the PCRA denial, considered whether counsel’s omission had arguable merit and caused actual prejudice under Strickland/Pierce/Spotz, and reversed, remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction that included recklessness as a mens rea for aggravated assault under § 2702(a)(3). | Domek: No reasonable basis for failing to object because recklessness is not a statutory basis; prejudice exists because the jury may have convicted on recklessness (supported by acquittal on a higher-intent charge). | Commonwealth/PCRA court: No prejudice because prior appellate sufficiency ruling shows evidence of intentional/knowing conduct was sufficient; counsel presumed effective. | Superior Court: Counsel ineffective; omission had arguable merit and caused actual prejudice given the erroneous instruction and the evidence; ordered new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henkel v. Commonwealth, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standards for Superior Court review of PCRA denial)
- Williams v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 440 (Pa. 2016) (de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Cousar v. Commonwealth, 154 A.3d 287 (Pa. 2017) (ineffective assistance standard and presumption of counsel effectiveness)
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (prejudice inquiry for PCRA ineffective-assistance claims; actual-prejudice standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Pierce v. Commonwealth, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (Pennsylvania adoption of Strickland framework)
- Busanet v. Commonwealth, 54 A.3d 35 (Pa. 2012) (weighing error against strength of evidence)
- Kyle v. Commonwealth, 874 A.2d 12 (Pa. 2005) (when legal questions obviate need for evidentiary remand)