Commonwealth v. Feese
79 A.3d 1101
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Feese appeals a 4–12 year aggregate sentence following conviction on 40 charges arising from use of public funds for campaign activities in the PA House Republican Caucus (HRC) from 2001–2007.
- The scheme involved TelStar mobile campaign tools and the Blue Card voter database, integrated by HRC staff with taxpayer-funded resources to advance partisan campaigns.
- Contractors GCR (New Orleans) and Aristotle International (DC) worked with RITS staff to develop and maintain the campaign technologies from 2001–2006.
- Feese held leadership roles in the HRC, including Director of the HRCC and Chief Counsel, and was accused of knowing, directing, or approving improper use of resources and later attempting to cover it up.
- The OAG filed multiple informations in 2010–2011 alleging conflict of interest, theft, conspiracy, hindering, and obstruction; after a 23-day trial, Feese was convicted on all counts and sentenced February 10, 2012, with restitution and fines imposed.
- Feese raised several claims on appeal, including prosecutorial destruction of interview notes, separation of powers, sufficiency of the evidence, vagueness of the Ethics Act, and related issues; the Superior Court affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether destruction of interview notes violated due process or Brady-type rights | Feese argues OAG destruction of notes breached Brady/Youngblood, policy, and ethics rules | Feese must show bad faith; destruction policy complied with; no direct proof of bad faith | Destruction in bad faith not shown; no Brady violation established on record |
| Whether admission of evidence about campaign work hours during normal hours violated separation of powers | Feese asserts executive branch overreach by using OAG to regulate legislative hours | Evidence is factual on hours policy; no constitutional usurpation | Trial court did not abuse discretion; admission proper under facts and Habay guidance |
| Whether evidence supports the conviction that Feese authorized/ Directed <37.5 hours for legislative work | Feese challenges sufficiency as to conflict of interest based on 37.5-hour standard | Sufficiency rests on substantial campaign-use of taxpayer resources, not strict hours alone | Sufficiency upheld; jury could infer private pecuniary gain and use of resources |
| Whether Feese was guilty of obstruction/hindering and conspiracy based on tampered meeting notes | Notes allegedly tampered with; Feese aided concealment | Evidence supports credibility assessments; not all details determinative; weight for jury | Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions for obstruction/hindering and conspiracy based on tampering |
| Whether the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Ethics Act vague; Feese used resources for campaign for private gain | Act provides fair notice; Habay controls; not vague as applied | Ethics Act not unconstitutionally vague as applied; Habay-based reasoning sustains |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (favorable evidence must be disclosed if material to guilt or punishment)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (no due process violation absent bad faith failure to preserve potentially useful evidence)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1984) (limited duty to preserve evidence; good-faith preservation matters)
- Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2004) (discovery requests do not automatically negate preservation duties; bad faith not required to bar action)
- Commonwealth v. Habay, 934 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2007) (vagueness of ethics conflict statute sustained; guidance for private pecuniary gain)