Commonwealth v. Kunkle
79 A.3d 1173
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Victim Benjamin Amato was found beaten to death in his Chestnuthill Township home; cause: blunt force trauma to the head; death occurred between Nov. 12–16, 2001.
- No forced entry; evidence indicated an attack at the top of basement stairs, presence of pepper spray residue, blood spatter, and a boot print in a blood pool.
- Multiple witnesses (including the defendant’s son, boyfriend, and a family acquaintance) testified that Appellant Cheryl Kunkle confessed to killing Amato and described the attack; others testified she solicited third parties to kill him months earlier and supplied money/photo.
- Appellant was arrested in 2005; she gave statements to police after receiving Miranda warnings and later asked to contact counsel during processing; police contacted her attorney’s office and then obtained a custodial interview which ended when she requested a lawyer.
- At trial the court admitted: (1) Appellant’s custodial/spontaneous statements; (2) decedent’s out-of-court statements about fearing Appellant under state-of-mind and forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrines; (3) evidence about prior solicitation; and (4) testimony from the decedent’s attorney about custody conciliation and Appellant’s conduct.
- Appellant appealed raising five issues: suppression of custodial statements, admissibility of decedent’s statements, severance of solicitation from homicide, exclusion of conciliation-conference evidence under a local rule, and denial of impeachment by criminal-history evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Kunkle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Admissibility of November 3, 2005 custodial statements | Statements validly admitted because Miranda warnings were given and any remarks were spontaneous or voluntarily waived; interview consented to after opportunity to contact counsel | Statements should be suppressed as not knowingly/voluntarily waived and made in custodial interrogation without counsel present | Court held statements admissible: warnings given, statements were voluntary/spontaneous and waiver of counsel was valid; later invocation ended interview when requested |
| 2) Admission of decedent’s out‑of‑court statements that he feared Appellant | Admissible under state-of-mind exception and/or forfeiture-by-wrongdoing; non‑testimonial so Crawford not implicated | Inadmissible hearsay and violated confrontation/confidentiality rules (local conciliation rule) | Court held admissible under Pa.R.E. 803(3) and alternatively Pa.R.E. 804(b)(6); non‑testimonial and harmless in view of overwhelming evidence |
| 3) Severance of solicitation charge from homicide charge | Evidence of solicitation is part of the chain of events and relevant to motive; joinder proper | Should be severed because solicitation and homicide were different in time/place and could unduly prejudice | Court denied severance: evidence mutually admissible, part of the natural development of the case, and joinder not prejudicial |
| 4) Admission of testimony from custody conciliation context (local Rule 1915.4‑1) | Testimony concerned statements outside the conciliation or documents independent of conciliation; mediation/conciliation privilege inapplicable here | Local rule bars admissibility of conciliation statements and conciliator testimony | Court found issue waived and, on merits, the contested statements fell outside the rule (not made at conciliation or were independent documents) and were admissible as relevant to motive |
| 5) Impeachment of Commonwealth witness with criminal history (Pa.R.E. 609) | Commonwealth not opposed on procedural basis; admissibility governed by Rule 609 if properly noticed | Kunkle argued denial of opportunity to impeach with convictions | Court found issue waived because defendant failed to comply with Rule 609 notice and inadequately developed argument on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes custodial‑interrogation warnings requirement)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (interrogation must cease after invocation of right to counsel unless counsel present or defendant initiates)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay and Confrontation Clause framework)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine in Confrontation Clause context)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (totality of circumstances for knowing and voluntary waiver of rights)
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 756 A.2d 1139 (Pa.) (evidence of other crimes admissible as part of the chain/sequence of events)
- Commonwealth v. Gaul, 912 A.2d 252 (Pa.) (Miranda safeguards and spontaneous utterance doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Luster, 71 A.3d 1029 (Pa.Super.) (victim’s state‑of‑mind statements admissible to show motive)