Commonwealth v. Hannibal, S., Aplt., 705 CAP

Appellant Sheldon Hannibal was linked at trial to a triple murder (including victim Tanesha Robinson) by testimony from a jailhouse informant, James Buigi, whose credibility was later challenged.
On direct appeal Hannibal argued the other-crimes evidence was inadmissible under Pa.R.E. 403 and that Buigi’s testimony was insufficient to link him to the murders.
In a post-conviction posture, Hannibal renewed a due process claim: admission of evidence of the other murders violated due process because it rested on unreliable testimony (Buigi lied about being Hannibal’s cellmate and acted as a government agent).
The Supreme Court’s Majority treated the due-process claim as previously litigated and rejected it; Justice Todd joins the judgment but disagrees that the claim was previously litigated.
Justice Todd would find the claim was raised but not actually decided on direct appeal, so it was not "previously litigated," and proceeds to evaluate the due process claim on its merits.
On the merits Justice Todd rejects Hannibal’s narrow due process argument: unreliable government witness testimony does not, by itself, violate due process and credibility issues are addressed by cross-examination; therefore admission did not deny fundamental fairness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of evidence linking Hannibal to other murders violated due process because it relied on unreliable informant testimony	Hannibal: Buigi lied about being his cellmate and acted as a government agent; Buigi’s testimony was so unreliable that admitting it denied due process	Commonwealth: Claim was previously litigated; even if not, alleged informant unreliability goes to credibility and should be managed by cross-examination, not exclusion	Justice Todd: Claim was raised but not decided on direct appeal so not "previously litigated"; on merits, admission did not violate due process because incredible testimony is for cross-examination and not per se unconstitutional

Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) (due-process exclusion limited to evidence that is extremely unfair and offends fundamental justice)
United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) (due-process standard for unfair prosecutorial conduct)
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1968) (testimony from witnesses with incentives to lie does not automatically violate due process; credibility is for cross-examination)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 932 A.2d 179 (Pa. Super. 2007) (claim rejected as insufficiently developed on direct appeal is not "previously litigated" under PCRA)
Commonwealth v. Hannibal, 753 A.2d 1265 (Pa. 2000) (direct-appeal decision in which related evidentiary issues were previously raised)