Commonwealth v. Hicks, C., Aplt.
Commonwealth v. Hicks, C., Aplt. - No. 718 CAP
| Pa. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Deanna Null’s dismembered body parts were found in garbage bags along highways near Charles Hicks’s residence; her head was located about 200 yards from Hicks’s house. Autopsy evidence (ascribed to Dr. Ross) showed blunt force trauma, strangulation, multiple rib fractures, and that the neck/head were severed while she was alive.
- Police tied Hicks to the victim by his being the last person seen with her, his admissions of a prior sexual/drug relationship with her, blood on his boots and in his car, the victim’s hands found in Hicks’s home (wrapped with materials matching items from his house), saw blades and hairs matching the victim recovered in the residence, and Hicks’s fingerprints on identical garbage bags.
- The Commonwealth sought to admit other-acts evidence under Pa.R.E. 404(b) from several women who testified Hicks had assaulted, choked, threatened with weapons, or otherwise violently controlled them during drug/sex encounters; the trial court admitted testimony from Alston, Washington, and Chavez.
- Hicks was convicted of first-degree murder, tampering with evidence, and abuse of a corpse; the jury recommended death based on the torture aggravator, and the court imposed a death sentence. Post-sentence motions were denied; Hicks appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- The central contested legal issue on appeal was the admissibility of Rule 404(b) other-acts evidence; the Court also performed the mandatory independent sufficiency review for first-degree murder and reviewed the propriety of the death sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Hicks's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Rule 404(b) other-acts evidence | Evidence of prior assaults on drug‑using/sex‑working women is admissible to prove common plan/scheme, identity, intent, and absence of accident; probative value outweighs prejudice in a largely circumstantial case | Prior incidents were materially different and cumulative; similarities (use of hands/neck) were insufficient and admission was unfairly prejudicial | Affirmed: other-acts evidence admitted — similarities constituted a logical connection/"virtual signature," probative value outweighed prejudice, and limiting instructions mitigated risk |
| Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree murder (mandatory review) | Circumstantial proof (last seen with victim, blood in car/boots, victim’s hands in Hicks’s home, matching materials, expert testimony of homicidal injuries) sufficed to prove unlawful killing, identity, malice and specific intent | (Not briefed) Defense presented contrary expert opinion (death by overdose) and contested timing of injuries | Affirmed: viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, the jury reasonably found Hicks was the killer with malice and specific intent |
| Validity of death sentence / aggravator (torture) | Expert testimony established severe beating, strangulation, and decapitation while victim alive — supports torture aggravator; sentence not product of passion or arbitrariness | Argued mitigating evidence and conflicts in expert testimony undermined aggravator or fairness of sentence | Affirmed: record supports torture aggravator and no arbitrary sentencing factors were present |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Weakley, 972 A.2d 1182 (Pa. Super. 2009) (sets factors for comparing other acts to charged crime)
- Commonwealth v. Arrington, 86 A.3d 831 (Pa. 2014) (upheld admission of prior abuses to prove common plan/scheme where prosecution was largely circumstantial)
- Commonwealth v. Rush, 646 A.2d 557 (Pa. 1994) (requires signature-like similarity for other-acts evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 555 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 1989) (similarities beyond insignificant details can establish identity/signature)
- Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 454 A.2d 937 (Pa. 1982) (Court’s obligation to independently review sufficiency in capital cases)
- Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 846 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2004) (admissibility standard and weighing probative value against unfair prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Fortune, 346 A.2d 783 (Pa. 1975) (no logical connection where other acts are indistinguishable from common street crimes)