Commonwealth v. Natividad, R., Aplt.
200 A.3d 11
| Pa. | 2019Background
- Ricardo Natividad was convicted (1997) of first‑degree murder and related offenses for a November 9, 1996 carjacking of Michael Havens and the subsequent killing of Robert Campbell; he was sentenced to death.
- Trial evidence tied Natividad to the carjacking (Havens identified him, the stolen Lincoln, Havens’s lumberjack jacket recovered from a burned car trunk) and to the murder (eyewitness Price saw Natividad return with a chrome .357 and later identified him; Natividad bragged about the killing and sold the .357).
- Years later, during federal habeas litigation, the Commonwealth produced previously undisclosed investigatory materials (including a handwritten “Maculla” note and multiple November 1996 statements implicating Rupert Robinson and reporting that Robinson had confessed).
- Natividad filed a third PCRA petition alleging Brady violations based on (1) nondisclosure of the “Maculla” note (which led to a John McCullough declaration denying Natividad’s involvement) and (2) nondisclosure of documents and witnesses suggesting Robinson claimed responsibility.
- The PCRA court held limited evidentiary hearings, denied relief (finding the Maculla claim untimely and the Robinson materials non‑material given overwhelming Commonwealth evidence), and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Natividad) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was nondisclosure of the “Maculla” note a Brady violation and timely? | The note identified an eyewitness ("Maculla"/McCullough) and would have led to exculpatory witness McCullough; Commonwealth’s withholding interfered with filing and delayed discovery. | Note was a mere investigatory lead; even if disclosed, Natividad could have and should have filed within 60 days of disclosure (triggering PCRA timeliness). | Claim untimely: 60‑day clock ran from March 6, 2012 production of the note; petition filed Aug 9, 2012—court lacked jurisdiction to address merits. |
| 2. Was nondisclosure of Robinson‑related statements (alleged confessions) a Brady violation? | Statements showed another person confessed and police investigated Robinson; withholding prevented meaningful alternate‑perpetrator defense and impeaching investigation. | The statements were gossip/hearsay and quickly investigated/eliminated by police; even if Brady material, the remaining trial evidence against Natividad was overwhelming. | Brady’s suppression and favorability prongs met, but materiality not met: in context of entire record no reasonable probability of different outcome; claim denied. |
| 3. Did cumulative nondisclosures (Maculla + Robinson) warrant relief? | The suppressed items must be considered collectively and would undermine confidence in verdict. | Maculla claim untimely; Robinson materials alone are immaterial. | Cumulative claim considered only for timely Robinson materials and rejected—no reasonable probability of different result. |
| 4. Did PCRA court abuse discretion by denying parole/probation files for McCullough III? | Files could provide impeachment (bias, drug use, mental health) and met exceptional‑circumstances standard for discovery. | Request was overbroad, invasive, and much impeachment information publicly available; in camera review appropriate. | No abuse of discretion: request was overly broad; in camera review and denial proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to accused)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality: reasonable probability that disclosure would have changed outcome; evaluate evidence collectively)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (three Brady components: favorable, suppressed, material)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (reasonable probability definition: undermines confidence in outcome)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (Brady limits; consider withheld evidence in context of entire record)
- Turner v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1885 (2017) (withheld leads insufficient where government case remained strong)
- Commonwealth v. Natividad, 773 A.2d 167 (Pa. 2001) (prior direct‑appeal opinion affirming conviction)