Commonwealth v. Miller
172 A.3d 632
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On October 6, 2013, Steven R. Miller, an inmate at Curran-Fromhold, stabbed fellow inmate Khayree Murray several times in the head, back and ear with an improvised weapon; officers intervened and recovered the weapon. Murray required hospitalization and sutures; Miller had no injuries beyond pepper spray exposure.
- Miller was tried by jury for aggravated assault, simple assault, and possessing an instrument of crime (PIC); Murray refused to testify at trial and was held in contempt for his refusal.
- Miller testified, claiming self-defense and stating Murray attacked him first; he also admitted at trial he never feared Murray would kill him. Recorded prison phone calls contained inculpatory statements by Miller boasting about the attack and motive.
- The jury convicted Miller on all counts and the trial court imposed an aggregate 8–20 year sentence. Post-sentence motions were denied and Miller appealed, raising sufficiency/weight, various evidentiary and instruction errors, prosecutorial misconduct, denial of a missing-witness instruction, admission/timeliness of statements and transcripts, exclusion of a victim’s prior similar attack, and an after-discovered evidence claim.
- The Superior Court affirmed all trial rulings (including that the Commonwealth disproved self-defense and that evidence supported aggravated/simple assault and PIC), rejected weight and most evidentiary/prosecutorial claims, but remanded for the trial court to consider Miller’s after-discovered evidence claim concerning two newly identified eyewitnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Miller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: self-defense disproved | Commonwealth: evidence (eyewitnesses, phone calls, injuries) disproved self-defense beyond reasonable doubt | Miller: his testimony that Murray attacked first raised self-defense that Commonwealth failed to disprove | Affirmed — Commonwealth disproved self-defense; evidence sufficient for convictions |
| Sufficiency: aggravated & simple assault | Commonwealth: repeated stabbing with improvised weapon, serious injuries, and surrounding circumstances prove intent and assault | Miller: conflicting officer testimony and other inconsistencies undermine proof | Affirmed — viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, elements proven |
| PIC conviction | Commonwealth: inmate possession of weapon in prison and use in assault permits inference of criminal intent | Miller: claims self-defense and challenges inference of intent | Affirmed — possession in prison inherently criminal and weapon was used in assault |
| Weight of the evidence | Commonwealth: factual disputes for jury to resolve | Miller: Officer Rosa’s testimony was inconsistent and verdict shocks conscience | Denied — trial court properly exercised discretion; no shock to conscience |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (opening/closing) | Commonwealth: statements were fair inferences or responses to defense attacks | Miller: prosecutor prejudicially referenced solitary confinement and vouched for witness credibility | Denied — objections sustained; not a basis for mistrial; comments permissible responses/inferences |
| Missing-witness instruction for victim | Commonwealth: victim was called but refused to testify; equally available to both parties | Miller: jury should be instructed it may infer victim’s testimony would be adverse | Denied — victim was called and refused; instruction inappropriate because witness was equally available |
| Admission/timeliness of Officer Rosa’s inculpatory statement | Commonwealth: statement omission was inadvertent, immediately disclosed during trial; evidence equally inaccessible | Miller: late disclosure prejudiced defense | Denied — trial court admitted statement; continuing duty satisfied and defense cross-examined Rosa |
| Jury having transcripts of recorded prison calls | Commonwealth: transcripts aid jury’s review of recordings; not forbidden by rule | Miller: transcripts unduly emphasized marginally relevant evidence | Denied — within trial court discretion; transcripts admissible as deliberation aid |
| Exclusion of victim’s prior similar attack (Rule 404(b)) | Commonwealth: prior incident not distinctive enough; prejudicial; Miller used wrong evidentiary vehicle | Miller: prior assault shows victim’s propensity, common plan/design | Denied — prior act not sufficiently distinctive; probative value outweighed by prejudice and procedural misapplication |
| After-discovered evidence (two new witnesses) | Commonwealth: does not oppose limited remand to trial court to consider claim | Miller: new letters from witnesses who would have supported self-defense merit remand for hearing | Remanded — Superior Court granted remand for trial court to develop record and rule on the after-discovered evidence claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Melvin, 103 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738 (Pa. 2012) (elements of self-defense when using deadly force)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 950 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2008) (multiple stab wounds may support aggravated assault conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Torres, 766 A.2d 342 (Pa. 2001) (defendant need not prove self-defense; Commonwealth must disprove it once raised)
- Commonwealth v. Bango, 685 A.2d 564 (Pa. Super. 1996) (permitting jury use of transcripts to aid assessment of admitted recordings)
- Commonwealth v. Dent, 837 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discovery rules cannot be used against Commonwealth when evidence equally accessible)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 939 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standards for after-discovered evidence and remand for trial court consideration)