Commonwealth v. McLaurin
45 A.3d 1131
Pa. Super. Ct.2012Background
- McLaurin was convicted of indecent assault, indecent exposure, and corruption of minors, and possession of marijuana.
- He filed a counseled PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing under Rule 907.
- The Superior Court affirmed the denial, concluding no genuine issues of material fact and no entitlement to relief.
- Appellant argues trial counsel failed to suppress marijuana, call character witnesses, impeach the victim’s mother, address taint, obtain CYS records, and provide an adequate defense to corruption of minors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance re suppression | Marijuana should have been suppressed; patdown was unlawful. | Marijuana would be discovered inevitably in a lawful search incident to arrest. | Inevitable discovery renders suppression unwarranted. |
| Failure to call character witnesses | Fourteen witnesses would testify to Appellant’s good character. | Counsel was not required to call them without affidavits or proof of availability. | No hearing warranted; insufficient proof of witness existence/availability. |
| Impeachment of victim's mother | Counsel should impeach CE’s credibility due to relationship with Appellant. | Counsel questioned the relationship; further impeachment would be improper. | Not ineffective; trial record showed adequate cross-examination. |
| Taint and coordination of testimony | Victim, mother, and sister coordinated testimony to mislead. | Appellant provided no controlling authority; argument waived or meritless. | Waived or meritless on record; no error established. |
| Obtaining victim’s CYS records | Records could contain discrediting past false allegations. | Evidence under Rule 608 would be limited and would not change outcome. | No relief; records would not have altered verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gandy, 38 A.3d 899 (Pa. Super. 2012) (PCRA review standards of review)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, Pa. , 36 A.3d 121 (2012) (ineffectiveness standard in PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Kimball, 555 Pa. 299, 724 A.2d 326 (1999) (PCRA prejudice and deficient performance test)
- Commonwealth v. Douglas, 537 Pa. 588, 645 A.2d 226 (1994) (prejudice prong for ineffective assistance)
- Commonwealth v. Wah, 42 A.3d 335 (Pa. Super. 2012) (PCRA ineffectiveness framework)
- Commonwealth v. Bracey, 568 Pa. 264, 795 A.2d 935 (2001) (broad view of PCRA claims)
- Commonwealth v. Khalil, 806 A.2d 415 (Pa. Super. 2002) (necessity of affidavits for uncalled witnesses)
- Commonwealth v. Hanible, Pa. , 30 A.3d 426 (2011) (limitations on impeachment evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Padden, 160 Pa. Super. 269, 50 A.2d 722 (1947) (character evidence may create reasonable doubt)
- Commonwealth v. Neely, 522 Pa. 236, 561 A.2d 1 (1989) (characterization of good character evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 782 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2001) (remedies for defective PCRA pleadings)