Commonwealth v. Funk
29 A.3d 28
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Funk was convicted by jury of first-degree murder, PIC, theft by unlawful taking/disposition, and receiving stolen property, and sentenced to life without parole plus 16.5–33 years for other counts.
- Trial evidence included photographs of the crime scene and the autopsy; objections were raised to their admission as inflammatory.
- Testimony included victim’s mother describing controlling behavior and prior police reports of domestic disputes.
- Funk gave multiple statements to police; the initial statements differed from later versions presented at trial.
- Issues also included alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for not allowing Funk to testify and for adopting heat-of-passion defense, raised on post-sentence motions.
- Court granted en banc review; ultimately affirmed the judgment and dismissed ineffectiveness claims without prejudice to collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of enlarged photos over objection | Funk argues photos were inflammatory and prejudicial | Commonwealth contends photos have essential evidentiary value | Photos not abuse of discretion; essential to prove intent; issue rejected |
| Admissibility of prior bad acts evidence about Funk | Evidence showed motive and absence of accident | Tests for relevance and potential prejudice balanced by probative value | Court did not abuse discretion; admissible for motive/intent/absence of accident |
| Ineffective assistance for not permitting Funk to testify | Direct appeal review allowed for ineffectiveness claims | Post-conviction review required; not reviewable on direct appeal | Dismissed on direct appeal per Barnett; may pursue in PCRA |
| Ineffective assistance for adopting heat-of-passion defense | Counsel misapplied defense strategy to the case | Strategic choice; not reviewable on direct appeal | Dismissed on direct appeal; may pursue in PCRA |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Marinelli, 547 Pa. 294 (Pa. 1997) (photographs must not be per se inadmissible; abused discretion standard)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122 (Pa. 2007) (two-pronged test: inflammatory vs. essential evidentiary value)
- Commonwealth v. Dotter, 589 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 1991) (photographs must be not inflammatory to admit; essential value)
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 902 A.2d 430 (Pa. 2006) (specific intent to kill can be proven circumstantially via deadly force on vital parts)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 811 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2002) (admissibility of prior bad acts for motive/intent/identity balanced with prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Barnett, 25 A.3d 371 (Pa. Super. 2011) (ineffective-assistance claims generally not reviewable on direct appeal; PCRA required)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa. 2008) (framework for not reviewing ineffectiveness on direct appeal absent waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Liston, 977 A.2d 1096 (Pa. 2009) (waiver requirement for PCRA review of ineffectiveness)