Commonwealth v. Kearney
92 A.3d 51
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Appellant Richard M. Kearney (known as "Benny") faced four consolidated criminal cases arising from two separate break‑ins at a mountain cabin (Feb. 2 and June 29, 2011) and related carjacking/false imprisonment incidents (June 30, 2011).
- Victims included Travis Smith (cabin owner), Tabetha (Tabitha) Mellott (held at gunpoint and searched), and Ashley Ramp (carjacked from her rented silver HHR). Co‑defendant Marc Dorce participated in several incidents.
- Photo arrays and out‑of‑court identifications (by Mellott and Ramp) were used by police; Appellant challenged their suggestiveness and asserted a right to counsel at identification.
- Appellant had a contentious relationship with the trial judge, repeatedly filed pro se motions, changed counsel multiple times, and acted confrontationally in court; he waived jury for the bench trials of two cabin cases.
- Convictions: jury convictions in two cases (CR‑226, CR‑227) and bench convictions in two cabin cases (CR‑211, CR‑223); aggregate sentence ~204–408 months plus additional consecutive terms. Appellant appealed raising recusal, sufficiency, and identification suppression claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kearney) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal of judge | Judge had extensive prior exposure to disputed facts, acrimonious exchanges created appearance of bias requiring recusal | Prior proceedings and courtroom remarks derive from case activity; judge presumed impartial; remarks reflect courtroom administration, not extrajudicial bias | Denied — no abuse of discretion; prior proceedings/remarks insufficient to show disqualifying bias |
| Sufficiency of evidence (bench convictions CR‑211, CR‑223) | Evidence was weak, contradictory, and unreliable — verdicts cannot stand, especially given alleged biased factfinder | Record contains evidence (victim testimony, circumstances) adequate for convictions; appellate court cannot reweigh credibility | Denied — viewing evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth, sufficient evidence supported convictions |
| Identification/photo arrays suppression | Photo arrays were unduly suggestive (appearance differences, one photo smiling, handcuffed showup), and counsel should have been present for post‑arrest IDs | Totality of circumstances shows reliability: victims knew appellant, had opportunities to view him, prompt IDs; no proof appellant was in custody for these offenses when arrays occurred | Denied — identifications were reliable and not unduly suggestive; right to counsel claim waived/unsupported |
| Sufficiency of evidence (robbery of motor vehicle, CR‑226) | Victim testimony (Ramp) contradicted and was unreliable; prosecution failed to prove robbery element beyond reasonable doubt | Jury credited Ramp; inconsistencies go to weight not sufficiency | Denied — evidence sufficient; credibility issues are for factfinder |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Druce, 577 Pa. 581, 848 A.2d 104 (Pa. 2004) (recusal standard; extra‑judicial source doctrine and rarity of disqualification for facts developed in prior proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Abu‑Jamal, 553 Pa. 485, 720 A.2d 79 (Pa. 1998) (judge’s self‑assessment of impartiality and deference to that decision absent abuse of discretion)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (judicial remarks during proceedings do not establish bias unless they show deep‑seated favoritism or antagonism)
- Commonwealth v. Slocum, 86 A.3d 272 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014) (sufficiency review standard; circumstantial evidence and credibility deference)
- Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 580 Pa. 303, 860 A.2d 102 (Pa. 2004) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Moye, 836 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003) (identification reliability factors; one‑on‑one identifications not automatically excluded)
- Commonwealth v. Blassingale, 398 Pa. Super. 379, 581 A.2d 183 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990) (right to counsel at photographic identification attaches upon custody for the offense under investigation)