Commonwealth v. Jacoby, T., Aplt.
170 A.3d 1065
| Pa. | 2017Background
- On March 31, 2010 Monica Schmeyer was found murdered at her home from a close-range .32 caliber gunshot; evidence of a struggle and a .32 caliber shell casing were recovered.
- Timothy Jacoby, a member of an informal group (the "OSS") that included the victim’s ex-husband, became a suspect based on: witness sightings of a man matching his description near the victim’s home carrying a white envelope, surveillance showing a customized silver van (company van Jacoby had access to) in the area, and his absence from an OSS meeting at the time of the killing.
- Forensic links included Y-STR DNA from beneath the victim’s fingernails that could not exclude Jacoby or his paternal male relatives, and ballistic evidence tying casings from Jacoby’s parents’ property and shooting range to the casing at the scene; a Kel‑Tec firearm and related materials were recovered at his parents’ home.
- Police executed search warrants of Jacoby’s residence and his parents’ property (July 2011) and later obtained a DNA warrant; Jacoby moved to suppress and sought a Frye hearing on Y‑STR DNA. The trial court denied suppression and the Frye request.
- A jury convicted Jacoby of first‑degree murder, burglary, tampering with physical evidence, and robbery, and recommended death; the trial court imposed a death sentence. On direct appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jacoby) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree murder, burglary, robbery | Ballistics and Y‑STR DNA insufficient to identify Jacoby; timeline is inconclusive | Circumstantial evidence (van access, eyewitnesses, envelopes, ballistics, Y‑STR) permits inference of identity and crime | Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions |
| Weight of the evidence / motion for new trial | Verdict shocks the conscience due to timeline inconsistencies and other conflicts | Jury may resolve inconsistencies; conflicts go to credibility, not weight | No abuse of discretion; verdict not against weight of evidence |
| Validity of search warrant for Jacoby’s residence (timeliness and nexus to finding the weapon) | Affidavit lacked individualized probable cause the murder weapon would be in his home after 15 months; staleness | Affidavit tied Jacoby to the crime scene, the van, and ownership of a Kel‑Tec; felon status increases likelihood he retained firearm | Warrant lacked probable cause to search for the weapon in his home (Fourth Amendment error), but error was harmless given overwhelming other evidence |
| Validity of search warrant for parents’ residence / standing | Warrant lacked probable cause and was stale | Affidavit included additional facts gathered during searches, fiancée’s statements, and items found at Jacoby’s home | Jacoby lacked standing to challenge search of parents’ home; claim not reached on merits |
| DNA warrant and Y‑STR admissibility / Frye hearing | Y‑STR is weaker than autosomal STR; databases small/limited; requested Frye hearing on novelty/reliability of methodology/statistics | Y‑STR laboratory techniques and databases are not scientifically novel; challenges affect weight, not admissibility | Frye hearing not required; Y‑STR admissible and denial not an abuse of discretion (arguments go to weight) |
| Sufficiency of penalty‑phase evidence supporting death sentence | Aggravating factors insufficient if felony convictions fail | Burglary and robbery convictions are supported; statutory aggravator (killing in perpetration of felony) proven | Death sentence upheld (aggravator proven; no passion/prejudice shown) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cash, 137 A.3d 1262 (Pa. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 82 A.3d 943 (Pa. 2013) (standards for sufficiency and probable cause review)
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 93 A.3d 829 (Pa. 2014) (independent appellate review in death‑penalty sufficiency matters)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1949) (probable cause as commonsense, practical inquiry)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality‑of‑circumstances probable cause test)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2001) (heightened protection for searches of the home)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (harmless‑error frameworks for erroneously admitted evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 513 A.2d 373 (Pa. 1986) (limits of automatic standing to challenge searches based on possessory offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 92 A.3d 766 (Pa. 2014) (Rule 702 and Frye principles for expert/scientific evidence)