Commonwealth v. Luster, 71 A.3d 1029

Appellant Luster was convicted by a jury of two counts of third-degree murder for Christine Karcher’s death and the death of her unborn child, and sentenced to 14–28 years’ imprisonment.
Karcher, seven months pregnant, died after being forced from a car and subsequently struck by another vehicle; multiple witnesses described threats, fear, and an argument between Luster and Karcher.
911 calls and a car-accident scene, along with forensic evidence (blood, hair matching the victim, and blunt/neck injuries), supported malice and causation arguments for third-degree murder.
PCRA petitions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel were filed; the PCRA court denied relief, and a panel of the Superior Court reversed and remanded for new counsel, after which the petition was again denied, prompting this appeal.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the PCRA court’s denial, finding no merit to the asserted ineffective-assistance claims, and the lead opinion upheld the ruling.
Judge OTT filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, agreeing that two issues have arguable merit and reversing in part and granting a new trial on those grounds; Judge GANTMAN concurred in the result.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Branaugh testimony cross-examination	Branaugh’s statements were hearsay and/or improperly identified_appellant’s voice.	Trial counsel had reasonable basis; testimony admissible as state-of-mind/excited-utterance; non-prejudicial.	No relief; testimony admissible; harmless error
Cross-examining Branaugh on prior inconsistent statement	Cross-exam needed to reveal inconsistency with Trooper Wilson’s report.	Expected variances are not substantial and testimony cumulative; cross-exam ineffective only if outcome-determinative.	No relief; omission not prejudicial; trial counsel had reasonable basis
Wife's testimony and spousal privilege	Wife’s testimony violated 42 Pa.C.S. § 5914 confessions; appellate counsel should have raised the issue.	Privileges may not be waived; admission harmless given overwhelming evidence.	No relief; admission was harmless and cumulative; no reversible error
Failure to retain a forensics expert	Expert could counter the theory that car impact caused death and/or that victim lay on roadway.	Counsel cross-examined experts; no proven missing witness; no prejudice shown.	No relief; absence of proposed expert did not deny fair trial
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	Closing argument urging inferences not supported by evidence improperly swayed jury.	Argument was a fair inference from evidence; permissible advocacy.	No relief; closing was proper and not prejudicial

Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 612 Pa. 333, 30 A.3d 1111 (Pa. 2011) (standards for PCRA review and ineffective assistance analysis)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 27 A.3d 244 (Pa. Super. 2011) (ineffective assistance requires meritorious underlying claim, reasonable basis, and prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Rios, 920 A.2d 790 (Pa. 2007) (court may dismiss on lack of adverse effect from counsel’s acts)
Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 720 A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998) (three-pronged test for ineffective assistance)
McManamon v. Washko, 906 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Super. 2006) (prior statements impeachment; substantial omissions required)
Commonwealth v. Small, 980 A.2d 549 (Pa. 2009) (spousal privilege interaction with 5913/5914)
Commonwealth v. Laich, 777 A.2d 1057 (Pa. 2001) (victim's state-of-mind statements admissible only if issue-based)
Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (excited utterance doctrine requirements)
Commonwealth v. Levanduski, 907 A.2d 3 (Pa. Super. 2006) (state-of-mind evidence and admissibility boundaries)
Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 719 A.2d 242 (Pa. 1998) (expert testimony and impeachment standards)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 899 A.2d 1060 (Pa. 2006) (cumulative evidence and prejudice analysis)