Commonwealth v. Rush
162 A.3d 530
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 28, 2014, John Lewis Rush (on a probation warrant) engaged deputies and officers in Lawrenceville, PA; he fought officers and later attacked police K‑9 Rocco in a basement, stabbing the dog. Rocco later died from hemorrhaging.
- Rush was tried by jury and convicted of multiple counts including aggravated assault, disarming an officer, torture/cruelty to a police animal, resisting arrest, escape, possession of a weapon, and flight to avoid apprehension.
- At trial a juror (Juror No. 6) was seen briefly crying during emotional testimony (a 911 recording) in which an officer also cried; defense moved to dismiss that juror, which the court denied and instead relied on jury instructions.
- Defense requested a jury instruction defining “maliciously” using an expansive Drum/third‑degree murder formulation; the court refused and gave the standard suggested jury instructions defining “willfully or maliciously” in statutory terms.
- At sentencing the court imposed aggregate prison terms (totaling approximately 14 years 10 months to 36 years 6 months) plus probation; Rush appealed, challenging juror partiality, the malice instruction, and the discretionary aspects of sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rush) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror disqualification for visible crying | Juror No. 6’s crying showed bias/emotional attachment and could influence jury; dismissal was required | Crying was in response to emotional testimony (officer cried); juror had sworn to follow instructions; judge could assess demeanor and credibility | Denied. Court found no presumptive prejudice, trial judge did not abuse discretion in refusing to dismiss and instructions cured any issue |
| Jury instruction defining “maliciously” | Requested Drum‑style definition (wickedness, hardness of heart, disregard for probability of death) for cruelty/torture charges | Statutes require only that defendant acted “willfully or maliciously”; Drum’s murder‑based formulation overstates statutory mens rea; standard jury instructions accurately state law | Denied. Court refused misstatement of law and used standard jury instructions; no abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of remedial instruction after juror incident | Court’s final charge failed to address juror’s emotion adequately | Court relied on presumption jurors follow instructions and defense failed to object to charge on record | Denied. Claim waived in part; instructions presumed adequate and no evidence juror was biased |
| Discretionary aspects of sentencing (excessive, double‑counting, failure to consider rehab, consecutive sentences) | Sentence manifestly excessive; court double‑counted prior record and offense gravity; court didn’t consider rehabilitative needs; policy of sentencing per victim is impermissible | Court considered PSI, 9721(b) factors, defendant’s criminal history, absconder status, mental health, and victims’ impact; prior history supplemented other factors; consecutive sentences appropriate for multiple victims | Denied. No abuse of discretion; sentencing court individualized decision, considered relevant factors, and did not impermissibly double‑count |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2011) (voir dire and impartial jury principles; jury charge considered as whole)
- Commonwealth v. Pander, 100 A.3d 626 (Pa. Super. 2014) (juror emotional reaction not per se prejudicial)
- Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d 291 (Pa. 2011) (standard for juror disqualification based on bias and demeanor)
- Commonwealth v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9 (Pa. 1868) (classic definition of "malice" relied on by defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007) (guidelines advisory; sentencing court must individualize)
- Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2006) (limitations on using guideline factors as sole reason to aggravate sentence)