Commonwealth v. Elliott
622 Pa. 236
| Pa. | 2013Background
- Elliott, African-American, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 1994; direct appeal affirmed, then he sought PCRA relief.
- PCRA court granted a new trial on two independent grounds: (a) trial counsel’s failure to prepare for trial or meet Elliott in person; (b) trial counsel’s failure to object to the medical examiner’s time-of-death testimony.
- Commonwealth appealed the new-trial order; Elliott cross-appealed from the denial of relief on other issues.
- The trial record showed the victim, Kimberly Griffith, was killed after an evening of cocaine use; the medical examiner testified to time-of-death between 5:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., later revised to as late as 10:00 a.m.; Elliott left the residence around 10:00 a.m. while the victim was alive, and evidence of Elliott’s prior bad acts was admitted to establish a common scheme.
- The majority reversed the PCRA court’s grant of a new trial on the two discussed grounds and affirmed denial of relief on Elliott’s remaining claims; Brooks was treated as a potential basis for relief but deemed not properly preserved here and not controlling on collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretrial preparation and meeting with defense counsel | Elliott argues trial counsel’s lack of in-person meeting pretrial was ineffective | Commonwealth argues claim is waived and Brooks does not apply pre-Brooks-era law | Waived; even if preserved, no arguable merit; Brooks departs from precedent and prejudice not shown |
| Time-of-death testimony by medical examiner | Elliott asserts failure to object to time-of-death testimony was prejudicial | Commonwealth claims autopsy report did not specify time and testimony was proper under law | Reversed PCRA relief on this ground; no merit to appellate claim; pretrial objection not required to invalidate testimony |
| Investigation of prior bad acts evidence | Trial counsel failed to investigate and prepare for cross-examining three prior-bad-act witnesses | Counsel thoroughly cross-examined witnesses and had knowledge from prior representations; no prejudice shown | No reversal; lack of demonstrated prejudice defeats appellate ineffectiveness |
| Denial of continuance to investigate witnesses | A continuance was necessary to obtain impeachment information | No demonstrated abuse of discretion; no specific evidence would have been uncovered with more time | Denied relief; no abuse of discretion or prejudice established |
| Admission of prior bad acts and due process claim | Appellate counsel should have raised federal due-process challenge to bad acts evidence | Direct-appeal ruling already upheld admissibility; due-process claim lacking merit | No relief; underlying merits rejected on direct appeal; appellate ineffectiveness not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 (1987) (three-prong test for ineffective assistance in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Brooks, 576 Pa. 332 (2003) (holding pretrial face-to-face meeting required; later treated as waived/new framework)
- Commonwealth v. Harvey, 571 Pa. 533 (2002) (pre-Brooks precedent on pretrial preparation not per se ineffective)
- Commonwealth v. Porter, 556 Pa. 301 (1999) (pretrial consultation limits for ineffectiveness claims)