Commonwealth v. Perrin
108 A.3d 50
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Perrin was convicted of aggravated assault, robbery, conspiracy, and related offenses and sentenced to 5–10 years; he appealed.
- Convictions rested largely on testimony of co-defendant/witness Lynwood Perry, who had a cooperation deal with federal authorities; victim identification was inconsistent.
- While Perrin’s direct appeal was pending, the DA received an FBI FD-302 summarizing an interview with inmate Curtis Brown: Brown said Perry admitted he perjured himself and that Perrin was not involved.
- Perrin moved for remand for an evidentiary hearing on after-discovered evidence under Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; the Superior Court initially granted remand.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Castro (2014) changed the standard for what a Rule 720 motion must allege, prompting this Court to reconsider whether remand remained warranted.
- On reconsideration, the Superior Court held Perrin’s proffer was sufficiently specific and that the FD-302 was more direct than the newspaper allegations in Castro, so it again granted remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Perrin established a basis for remand/hearing on after-discovered evidence under Pa.R.Crim.P. 720 | Perrin: FD-302 from FBI is after-discovered evidence showing Perry admitted perjury and Perrin’s innocence; identified witnesses he would call (Perry, Brown, Agent Majarowitz) | Commonwealth: Evidence is vague, secondhand, likely only serves to impeach Perry, and would not change the verdict | Superior Court: Remand for evidentiary hearing granted — FD-302 is more probative than a newspaper article and Perrin specified the evidence he will present, satisfying Castro’s requirements |
| Whether the FD-302 is merely impeachment or potentially exculpatory | Perrin: FD-302 contains an admission against interest by Perry that could be exculpatory, not just impeachment | Commonwealth: The statement is secondhand and would only impeach Perry’s credibility | Court: Unclear at this stage; because FD-302 is pointed and could be exculpatory, a hearing is required to assess impact on verdict |
| Whether Perrin satisfied the Rule 720 four-prong after-discovered evidence test enough for an initial remand | Perrin: Met diligence and non-cumulative prongs; will show remaining factors at hearing | Commonwealth: Disputes materiality/likely-different-verdict prongs | Court: Diligence and non-cumulative prongs met; remand appropriate to let trial court evaluate remaining prongs at hearing |
| Effect of Commonwealth v. Castro on prior Superior Court remand practice | Perrin: His petition differs from Castro because it relies on an FBI FD-302 and names witnesses and evidence | Commonwealth: Castro requires more specificity and shows prior remands based on media allegations were improper | Court: Castro does not bar remand here — Perrin’s motion described the actual evidence and witnesses sufficiently |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 986 A.2d 84 (Pa. 2009) (sets four-prong after-discovered-evidence test)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2008) (principles on after-discovered evidence adopted in Montalvo)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 939 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 2007) (remand for hearing where post-trial revelations undermined key witness)
- Commonwealth v. Castro, 93 A.3d 818 (Pa. 2014) (motion must at least describe the evidence to be presented; mere allegations insufficient)
- Commonwealth v. Perrin, 59 A.3d 663 (Pa. Super. 2013) (prior Superior Court opinion granting remand; vacated and reconsidered after Castro)