Commonwealth v. Ross
57 A.3d 85
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Ross was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses; the Commonwealth sought the death penalty, and Ross faced a capital-murder case.
- Newly retained private counsel sought continuances to prepare defenses against extensive forensic evidence and numerous witnesses, which the court denied.
- Defense experts were retained late and had not received all evidence or produced complete reports before trial, limiting cross-examination and defense preparation.
- Trial proceeded October 28, 2005; the Commonwealth presented extensive forensic and expert testimony, and Ross was convicted on all charges.
- On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial, finding abuse of discretion in denying continuances and improper admission of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b).
- The dissent contends there was no abuse of discretion and supports admission of prior bad acts; the majority opinion affirms the remand for new trial on both issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Ross’s continuance motions. | Ross asserts denial prejudiced defense preparation and violated Sixth Amendment rights. | Ross’s counsel had time to prepare and no prejudice shown; efforts were adequate. | Yes; denial was an abuse of discretion and remanded for a new trial. |
| Whether the trial court properly admitted three prior bad acts witnesses under Rule 404(b). | Ross argues the evidence was inadmissible as character evidence and lacked nexus. | Commonwealth argues the evidence shows motive/intent/identity and plan. | No; admission was improper under Rule 404(b) and remanded for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Boxley, 596 Pa. 620, 948 A.2d 742 (Pa. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for continuance denial in capital cases)
- Commonwealth v. Randolph, 582 Pa. 576, 873 A.2d 1277 (Pa. 2005) (continuance discretion; prejudice considerations in criminal trials)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 351 Pa. Super. 119, 505 A.2d 295 (Pa. Super. 1986) (requirements to show prejudice in continuance rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Prysock, 972 A.2d 539 (Pa. Super. 2009) (factors for right to counsel of choice vs swift administration of justice (distinguishing the case))