Commonwealth v. Pope
2011 WL 480533
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Pope was charged with three counts of attempted theft, three counts of robbery causing serious bodily injury, and three counts of robbery causing bodily injury; trial evidence centered on a February 7, 2009 assault on Jessica Cunningham and her friends on 43rd Street in Philadelphia.
- Cunningham and Angela Lingo testified that Pope assaulted them, grabbed purses, and fled; Lingo identified Pope and retrieved Lingo’s purse from Pope’s jacket later.
- Kristin Rhodes testified Pope pulled them to the ground, punched Rhodes, and took her purse; she identified Pope based on trial testimony.
- An officer’s testimony was stipulated, including post-incident statements that Pope was identified and apprehended; the stipulations included Pope’s connection to the purses.
- At trial, Pope challenged the jury instructions, including the reasonable doubt instruction; he was convicted of one count of attempted theft and two counts of robbery with bodily injury, and acquitted on several charges; he moved for a new trial based on juror misconduct.
- Sentencing on October 21, 2009 imposed an aggregate term of four to twenty years, and Pope timely appealed alleging instructional error and juror misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in instructing that the jury 'must' convict if evidence proves guilt | Pope argues 'must' should have been 'should' per standard instructions | Commonwealth contends 'should' and 'must' are interchangeable in context | No reversible error; instruction adequate as whole |
| Whether the denial of a new trial for juror misconduct was proper where a juror visited the scene | Pope contends juror misconduct entitles new trial; prejudice presumed | Commonwealth argues no abuse of discretion; scene visit not prejudicial based on record | Judgment affirmed; no entitlement to evidentiary hearing; no prejudicial error shown |
| Whether the circuit’s reliance on case law such as Stegmaier is distinguishable and supports the instruction | Pope relies on Stegmaier to claim error | Commonwealth distinguishes Stegmaier and notes no lenity instruction required | Stegmaier distinction not controlling; no error in the charge when considered as a whole |
| Whether juror misconduct required automatic new trial given extraneous influences during deliberations | Pope argues automatic remedy due to juror’s scene visit | Commonwealth asserts discretion of trial court and lack of prejudice shown | No automatic new trial; insufficient prejudice shown under standard for extraneous influence |
| Whether the court properly applied the standard for reviewing juror-improper influence claims (Messersmith, Pratt, Carter) | Pope asserts established juror influence mandates relief | Commonwealth contends the court properly weighed factors and prejudice | Court correctly applied standard; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Grimes, 982 A.2d 559 (Pa. Super. 2009) (jury instruction standard; charge must clarify issues and not mislead)
- Commonwealth v. Stegmaier, 371 A.2d 1376 (Pa. Super. 1977) (inconsistent verdicts and lenity instruction considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Price, 344 A.2d 493 (Pa. 1975) (juror misconduct; extraneous influence; prejudice review framework)
- Commonwealth v. Hart, 565 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1989) (no mercy-based verdict instruction entitlement)
- Commonwealth v. Messersmith, 860 A.2d 1078 (Pa. Super. 2004) (no imputation of juror prejudice; outside influence limited inquiry)
- Carter v. United States Steel Corp., 604 A.2d 1010 (Pa. 1992) (outside influence exception in juror deliberations)
- Commonwealth v. Russell, 665 A.2d 1239 (Pa. Super. 1995) (discretionary review of juror misconduct determinations)