Commonwealth v. Hicks, C., Aplt.
2017 Pa. LEXIS 687
Pa.2017Background
- Victim Deanna Null’s dismembered body parts were found in garbage bags along highways near appellant Charles Ray Hicks’s home; her severed hands were discovered hidden inside Hicks’s house. Blood and DNA evidence linked the victim to Hicks’s vehicle and items in his home.
- Forensic pathologist Dr. Wayne Ross testified the victim suffered extensive pre‑death blunt‑force trauma, strangulation, and sharp‑force neck injuries and was decapitated while alive; defense experts disputed aspects but did not uniformly attribute death to an overdose.
- Police discovered weaponry/tools (Sawzall blade), matching garbage bags, blood‑stained boots, and victim hairs and fingerprints in Hicks’s residence; Hicks admitted knowing the victim and acknowledged dismembering and disposing of body parts but denied killing her.
- The Commonwealth sought to introduce prior‑bad‑acts testimony under Pa.R.E. 404(b) from women who alleged Hicks choked, beat, threatened with weapons, or otherwise assaulted them in drug‑related sexual encounters; trial court admitted testimony from three such witnesses.
- A jury convicted Hicks of first‑degree murder and related offenses and sentenced him to death; the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, holding (1) the conviction was supported by sufficient circumstantial evidence and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion admitting the 404(b) testimony (majority), while two justices dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth’s Argument | Hicks’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior bad acts under Pa.R.E. 404(b) | Prior assaults on similar, drug‑using women showed motive, intent, lack of accident, common scheme, and identity; probative value outweighed prejudice in a circumstantial case | Prior incidents were too dissimilar (different circumstances, severity, locations, relationships) and would unfairly prejudice the jury; not a signature or logical connection | Majority: admission not an abuse of discretion — similarities (neck‑focused violence against similar victims in drug/sex contexts) created a logical connection and probative value outweighed prejudice; limiting instructions given |
| Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree murder | Circumstantial evidence (forensic injuries, blood/DNA, victim’s hands in house, Hicks last seen with victim) supports malice and specific intent to kill | (No sufficiency challenge briefed) | Court conducted independent statutory review and held evidence was sufficient to support first‑degree murder conviction |
| Use of 404(b) evidence in penalty phase | Guilt‑phase evidence properly carried into penalty phase; aggravator (torture) supported by evidence of severe pre‑death injuries | (No preserved contest to admission for penalty phase) | Court upheld admission into penalty phase and affirmed sentence, finding torture aggravator supported |
| Harmless‑error / impact of 404(b) evidence | 404(b) evidence was necessary given circumstantial nature; probative weight high | Admission of prior acts was highly prejudicial and not harmless; requires new trial | Majority: no relief — evidence admissible and death sentence supported; concurrence (Baer) would affirm even if admission erroneous because other untainted evidence was overwhelming; dissent would reverse and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 454 A.2d 937 (Pa. 1982) (Court performs independent sufficiency review in capital appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Arrington, 86 A.3d 831 (Pa. 2014) (other‑acts evidence admissible to show common plan/scheme and rebut accident where circumstantial case exists)
- Commonwealth v. Weakley, 972 A.2d 1182 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (framework for comparing similarities across incidents: manner, weapons, purpose, location, victim type)
- Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 846 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2004) (admissibility turns on relevance and probative value outweighing unfair prejudice; limiting instructions mitigate prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Wable, 114 A.2d 334 (Pa. 1955) (distinctive, ‘‘signature’’ similarities can permit other‑acts evidence to prove identity)
- Commonwealth v. Rush, 646 A.2d 557 (Pa. 1994) (modus operandi/signature requirement: similarities must be unusual or distinctive)