Commonwealth v. Reese
31 A.3d 708
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant Randy Reese was convicted of first degree murder in Washington County after a jury trial and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Appellant challenged four evidentiary rulings via a post-trial appeal seeking a new trial.
- The Commonwealth introduced extensive circumstantial and documentary evidence tying Reese to the murder, including surveillance footage, identity testimony, and possession of a potentially relevant knife.
- Key contested rulings involved spousal privilege under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5914 regarding communications with a supposed second wife, and the admissibility of various prior-bad-acts and third-party consent evidence.
- The trial court denied suppression, rejected the spousal privilege, and admitted the contested evidence; appellate panel affirmed the judgments of conviction and the denial of a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the spousal privilege bar was properly applied to Ms. Kohn’s testimony | Reese asserts the privilege should bar Kohn’s testimony | Commonwealth argues no valid marriage existed to trigger § 5914 | No reversible error; privilege not proven; harmless error |
| Whether the baseball cap evidence was lawfully obtained via third-party consent | Cape’s consent was involuntary or invalid | Cape had authority and consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances | Admissible; consent valid under third-party consent framework |
| Whether Pataski’s testimony about a threat with crime-scene photos was admissible | Testimony was irrelevant or prejudicial bad character evidence | Relevant to state of mind and probative of credibility | Properly admitted; relevant to mental state and not unduly prejudicial |
| Whether Kohn’s Big Lots incident testimony and knife possession evidence were admissible under Rule 404(b) | Evidence improper character evidence to show propensity | Admissible to prove possession of a knife and opportunity and to rebut defense | Properly admitted under 404(b) exceptions and contextual relevance |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. King, 456 Pa.Super. 72, 689 A.2d 918 (Pa. Super. 1997) (motion in limine standard and admissibility principles)
- Commonwealth v. Moser, 999 A.2d 602, 605 (Pa. Super. 2010) (evidentiary in limine abuse of discretion standard)
- Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 570 Pa. 117, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002) (admissibility and relevance standards for evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Stallworth, 566 Pa. 349, 781 A.2d 110 (Pa. 2001) (standard for admission and impact of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Spetzer, 572 Pa. 17, 813 A.2d 707 (Pa. 2002) (testimonial privileges and scope; confidentiality)
- Commonwealth v. May, 540 Pa. 237, 656 A.2d 1335 (Pa. 1995) (burden shifting in privilege context; weigh privilege validity)
- In re Watt’s Estate, 409 Pa. 44, 185 A.2d 781 (Pa. 1962) (presumptions regarding validity of second marriage; burden of production)
- Commonwealth v. Hancharik, 534 Pa. 435, 633 A.2d 1074 (Pa. 1993) (confidentiality of spouse communications and scope of privilege)
- Commonwealth v. McBurrows, 779 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2001) (spousal privilege issues in criminal context; evidence of concealment of weapon)