Commonwealth v. Hicks
625 Pa. 90
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Deanna Null’s dismembered body was found in seven bags along PA Routes 80 and 380; Hicks was suspected due to alleged last-seen-with behavior.
- Hicks admitted past drug use with Null and provided money/drugs for sex; blood found on boots in Hicks’s trunk led to police search of his residence and discovery of Null’s hands in socks with detergent.
- Hicks was charged with criminal homicide, aggravated assault, tampering with or fabricating evidence, and abuse of a corpse; Commonwealth sought the death penalty.
- Before trial, Commonwealth gave Rule 404(b) notice of intent to introduce prior bad acts through multiple witnesses to prove motive, identity, modus operandi, absence of accident, and a common scheme targeting prostitutes.
- Trial court found three witnesses’ testimony fit a common scheme under Rule 404(b)(2) and admitted it under 404(b)(3); four other witnesses were deemed cumulative and excluded under Rule 403 as needlessly repetitive.
- Superior Court affirmed the pre-trial exclusion as to cumulative witnesses, treating the issue as alternative bases for exclusion; Supreme Court granted review to resolve 403/404(b) interplay and pretrial admissibility standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Rule 403/404(b) balancing be decided pre-trial? | Commonwealth argues pre-trial ruling is appropriate to prevent unfair surprise. | Hicks contends pre-trial ruling is premature and the balancing is trial-intensive. | Balancing is normally trial-based; pre-trial exclusion of cumulative 404(b) evidence under 403 was error. |
| May a trial court preclude specific witnesses as cumulative before trial? | Commonwealth asserts flexibility to restrict witnesses helps efficiency and fair trial. | Hicks argues prosecutor controls witness list; court cannot categorically bar named witnesses pre-trial. | Pre-trial exclusion of specific witnesses as cumulative was error; remedy remand with full trial-record balancing. |
| Is it appropriate to decide whether witnesses are admissible under Rule 404(b) pre-trial? | Notice serves to prevent unfair surprise and to prepare objections; pre-trial determination is permissible. | Pre-trial determination requires a complete record; may be premature without trial development. | Notice and preliminary admissibility analysis under 404(b) are proper, but final 403/404(b) balancing should wait for trial record. |
| Does pre-trial 403/404(b) balancing foreclose the Commonwealth’s ability to present its case? | Prosecutor should be allowed to present relevant evidence from a broad witness pool. | Early exclusions safeguard against unfair prejudice and reduce trial disruption. | Balancing should be deferred; ultimate admissibility depends on record developed at trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (prosecutor generally may choose evidence; but legal status exception noted)
- In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation, 916 F.2d 829 (3d Cir. 1990) (403 is a trial-oriented rule; pretrial determinations require robust record)
- Sprint/United Management Company v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379 (U.S. 2008) (Rule 403 is a trial-specific, fact-intensive inquiry)