Commonwealth v. Lawrence
165 A.3d 34
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- On Jan. 5, 2010, Lawrence chased and shot Ranay Vaughn after hearing a possible burglary; Vaughn died. Lawrence later fled to Georgia and was arrested and extradited.
- Jury convicted Lawrence of first-degree murder and related firearms offenses; he received life imprisonment. Direct appeal was denied; Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance.
- Lawrence filed a pro se PCRA petition (ineffective assistance of counsel claims); counsel was appointed, private counsel later substituted, and an evidentiary hearing was held.
- PCRA court dismissed the petition after briefing and a Notice of Intent to Dismiss; Lawrence appealed to the Superior Court.
- Lawrence raised seven ineffective-assistance claims: failures to object to prosecutor’s opening/closing statements (including racial slur and vouching), failure to request an accomplice (corrupt-and-polluted-source) charge for Hall, appellate counsel’s alleged concession that Lawrence was the shooter, failure to pursue Brady video evidence, failure to object to prosecutor’s characterization of medical examiner testimony, and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lawrence) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to object to prosecutor quoting defendant’s alleged post-shooting racial slur and calling him a “cold-blooded murderer” in opening | Comments were purely prejudicial and demanded objection/curative instruction | Quote was admissible preview of evidence of mens rea; ‘‘cold-blooded murderer’’ was fair oratorical comment | Held: No arguable merit to claim; counsel not ineffective (quoting relevant evidence permissible) |
| 2. Failure to object to alleged prosecutorial vouching in closing | Prosecutor vouched for Commonwealth witnesses and asserted defendant’s guilt as personal opinion | Remarks responded to defense attacks on witness credibility and invited jury to weigh all evidence; within permissible response | Held: No ineffective assistance; prosecutor’s remarks were responsive and within latitude |
| 3. Failure to request corrupt-and-polluted-source (accomplice) jury instruction re: Hall | Counsel should have requested instruction to discredit Hall’s testimony | Requesting that instruction would concede an accomplice relationship and conflict with innocence defense; tactical decision | Held: Strategy reasonable; no ineffectiveness for foregoing instruction |
| 4. Appellate counsel conceded Lawrence was shooter (argued only third-degree) | Concession denied adversarial testing and warranted Cronic or Strickland relief | Concession was strategic within broader sufficiency argument; not a Cronic-type complete failure and not shown to cause prejudice | Held: No per se or Strickland ineffectiveness; claim meritless |
| 5. Failure to pursue/disclose Midway Bar video (Brady) | Counsel failed to investigate or force disclosure of tapes (8:00–8:30pm) that would have impeached Hall | No evidence such tapes existed or were suppressed by Commonwealth; Brady requires the suppressed evidence exist and be in prosecution’s control | Held: Brady allegation speculative and unsupported; ineffective-assistance claim fails |
| 6. Failure to object to prosecutor’s characterization of medical examiner testimony | Prosecutor misrepresented ME testimony about shooter position; counsel should have objected or clarified | Prosecutor’s theory was a fair inference consonant with ME testimony; objection would be meritless | Held: No arguable merit; counsel not ineffective |
| 7. Cumulative prejudice from all errors | Combined failures deprived Lawrence of a fair trial | Most individual claims lacked merit; no multiple proven deficiencies to cumulate | Held: No cumulative-prejudice relief where individual claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuevas v. Commonwealth, 832 A.2d 388 (Pa. 2003) (quoting defendant’s words in opening/argument permissible when relevant to malice/motive)
- Kemp v. Commonwealth, 753 A.2d 1278 (Pa. 2000) (prosecutor may vigorously argue if comments supported by evidence)
- Paddy v. Commonwealth, 800 A.2d 294 (Pa. 2002) (prosecutorial misconduct requires unavoidable effect of biasing jury)
- Spotz v. Commonwealth, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (ineffectiveness test: arguable merit, reasonable basis, prejudice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Chmiel v. Commonwealth, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (prosecutorial vouching and bolstering definitions)
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 17 A.3d 873 (Pa. 2011) (corrupt-and-polluted-source charge principles)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 18 A.3d 1147 (Pa. Super. 2011) (limits of Cronic presumption and examples of per se failures)