Commonwealth v. Noel
53 A.3d 848
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant Harold Noel challenges his 2010 Philadelphia County sentence on jury-selection issues and prosecutorial conduct.
- Jury selection spanned Feb. 8–9, 2010; the court employed the Rule 631(E)(2) list system.
- The venire originated with 42 prospective jurors; after for-cause challenges, the pool dwindled to 23 eligible jurors.
- The court instructed peremptory challenges to be exercised with an incomplete pool, contrary to Rule 631(E)(2)’s plain terms.
- The defense argued for delaying peremptory challenges until a full Rule 631(E)(2) panel was assembled; the court disagreed.
- The Commonwealth ultimately used most peremptory challenges on Feb. 8–9, reducing the pool to fourteen for trial, with more jurors to be added if needed.
- Noel also asserted prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument; the court deemed the remarks non-prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the list system violated Rule 631(E)(2). | Noel | Commonwealth | Trial court erred; rule violated, but no prejudice established |
| Whether the prosecutorial closing statements denied Noel a fair trial. | Noel | Commonwealth | No prosecutorial misconduct; no deprivation of fair trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Dowling, 598 Pa. 611 (Pa. 2008) (standard of review for rule interpretation; de novo review)
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 802 A.2d 658 (Pa. Super. 2002) (footnote on list system flaws (dicta))
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 299 Pa. Super. 172 (Pa. Super. 1982) (prejudice when forced to use peremptory on cause—new trial if exhausted)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 477 Pa. 164 (Pa. 1978) (prejudice when forced to use peremptory on cause; potential new trial)
- Commonwealth v. McBee, 267 Pa. Super. 49 (Pa. Super. 1979) (prejudice when forced to use peremptory on cause; potential new trial)
- Commonwealth v. Moore, 462 Pa. 231 (Pa. 1975) (harmless error analysis when peremptory exhausted without prejudice)
- Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1988) (peremptories are not constitutional right; analysis focused on impartial jury)
- United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2000) (no constitutional violation when full peremptory challenges available; issue is state law remedy)
- Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (U.S. 2009) (no per se prejudice from impairment of peremptories; state remedy analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015 (Pa. Super. 2009) (context for evaluating prosecutorial closing remarks)