Commonwealth v. McCamey
154 A.3d 352
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- On Sept. 28, 2014, Michael Johns was found dead from asphyxiation (strangulation and smothering). Police investigation led to Patrick McCamey.
- McCamey gave inconsistent statements but admitted being at the victim’s home, struggling with Johns, and attempting to erase his blood with cleanser. He signed a Miranda waiver.
- Commonwealth charged McCamey with multiple counts: second-degree murder (robbery), second-degree murder (burglary), third-degree murder, robbery, burglary, and related conspiracies.
- At trial, a juror reported an unknown person in the courthouse hallway saying “guilty, guilty, guilty” to her; defense moved for a mistrial after the juror mentioned this to the whole panel.
- The trial court individually questioned each juror/alternate on the record, found they could remain impartial, and denied the mistrial motion. Jury convicted McCamey of all counts; court sentenced him to life on each second-degree murder count plus additional concurrent terms.
- On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed denial of the mistrial but held the separate sentences on multiple homicide counts (single victim) were illegal under merger/double jeopardy principles and vacated the judgment of sentence for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying mistrial after juror heard extraneous “guilty” remark | Commonwealth: individual voir dire of jurors showed no prejudice; no mistrial needed | McCamey: panel tainted because juror reported the suggestion in front of whole jury | Court: No abuse of discretion; individual questioning showed jurors could be impartial; mistrial denied |
| Whether multiple murder convictions/sentences for a single victim violate double jeopardy/merge for sentencing | Commonwealth: distinct murder charges may coexist | McCamey: multiple murder convictions and sentences for one death amount to multiple punishment | Court: Multiple murder convictions (two second-degree and third-degree) merge for sentencing; separate sentences were illegal; judgment of sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (constitutional protection against double jeopardy includes protection from multiple punishments)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 786 A.2d 961 (Pa. 2001) (ex parte contact with jurors viewed with disfavor; mistrial within court’s discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Mosley, 637 A.2d 246 (Pa. 1993) (no per se rule requiring juror disqualification for ex parte contact)
- Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519 (Pa. 2003) (trial court’s discretion in addressing juror contact; prejudice must be shown)
- Commonwealth v. Meadows, 787 A.2d 312 (Pa. 2001) (multiple murder convictions for single victim not mutually exclusive as convictions, but sentencing implications differ)
- Commonwealth v. Monteil, 416 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Super. 1979) (lesser homicide merged into murder for sentencing; vacated lesser sentence)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 650 A.2d 20 (Pa. 1994) (merger analysis employs Blockburger test; merger/double jeopardy principles)
- Commonwealth v. Vanderlin, 580 A.2d 820 (Pa. Super. 1990) (if error in one count’s sentence in multi-count case, vacate all sentences to allow court to re-structure sentencing)