Commonwealth v. Handfield
34 A.3d 187
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Charles Jennings was murdered in Coatesville on October 19, 2005; Appellant implicated himself in immunized grand jury testimony on November 16, 2006.
- Appellant moved to dismiss under Kastigar v. United States, arguing the Commonwealth used immunized testimony to target him; the court held hearings with police and DA personnel testifying.
- Evidence showed the DA and police insulated themselves from immunized information, erecting a Chinese Wall and reassigning prosecution to protect Appellant’s rights.
- The Commonwealth presented a chain of independent sources (beatings include Johnson’s later cooperation, Beckett/Shabazz statements, physical evidence) showing the later prosecution did not derive solely from immunized testimony.
- Trial included cross-examinations on immunized testimony, Beckett’s prior statements via Shabazz, and Johnson’s cross-examination limitations (including polygraph concerns).
- Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and possessing instruments of crime; sentence: life in prison.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kastigar dismissal standard applied | Appellant argues Commonwealth used immunized testimony as investigatory lead. | Commonwealth proved independent sources; no derivative use occurred. | Denial of dismissal affirmed; independent-source proof satisfied. |
| admissibility of Shabazz cross with Beckett prior statements | Beckett unavailable for cross; Beckett’s statements cannot be admitted through Shabazz. | Court allowed prior-consistent statements for rehabilitation under Rule 613(c). | No abuse of discretion; admissible under 613(c) timing and rehabilitation theory. |
| Cross-examination of Johnson regarding pending charges and plea | Limitations on exploring Johnson’s forgery case and plea bias were improper. | Limits were appropriate to avoid undue prejudice and confusion; polygraph issue properly excluded. | Court proper in limiting cross; polygraph exclusion affirmed per Sattazahn and related authorities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (U.S. 1972) (use/derivative-use immunity governs admissibility of immunized testimony)
- Swinehart, 541 Pa. 500 (Pa. 1995) (clear and convincing independent-source requirement for later prosecutions)
- Pantone, 634 F.2d 716 (3d Cir. 1980) (spirit of Kastigar permits prosecutorial participation with safeguards)
- Hutchinson, 521 Pa. 482 (Pa. 1989) (timing of prior statements matters for admissibility)
- Montalvo, 604 Pa. 386 (Pa. 2009) (prior consistent statements admissible for rehabilitation when timely)
- Sattazahn, 597 Pa. 648 (Pa. 2008) (polygraph evidence generally inadmissible; limits on cross-exam)
- Bozyk, 987 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2009) (permissible limits on cross-exam regarding pending charges)
- Nolen, 535 Pa. 77 (Pa. 1993) (bias and credibility cross-examination principles)
- Gore, 262 Pa. Super. 540 (Pa. Super. 1978) (prior consistent statements admissible through examining witness)
- Counterman, 553 Pa. 370 (Pa. 1998) (prior statements and rehabilitation context)