Commonwealth v. Sanchez
623 Pa. 253
| Pa. | 2013Background
- On Oct. 16, 2007 Appellant (Sanchez) and two companions (Martinez, Miranda) went to an apartment in Bucks County; shortly after entry a confrontation occurred and Sanchez fatally shot Mendez Thomas and Lisa Diaz and wounded Jessica Carmona. Sanchez fled; a 9mm Hi-Point later recovered from the vehicle was ballistically linked to the scene.
- Miranda and Martinez surrendered and implicated Sanchez; Martinez later pleaded guilty to burglary and conspiracy to burglary and testified for the Commonwealth. Sanchez was arrested days later and charged with two counts of first‑degree murder and related offenses including burglary and multiple conspiracy counts.
- At a joint trial (Sanchez and Miranda), the jury convicted Sanchez of two first‑degree murders and numerous related offenses; it sentenced Sanchez to life for Thomas’s killing and to death for Diaz’s killing, finding several aggravators (including that the murder occurred in perpetration of a felony — burglary).
- Sanchez did not file a timely direct appeal; the Federal Community Defender Office secured reinstatement of appeal rights nunc pro tunc, new counsel filed a Rule 1925(b) statement, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the case.
- The central appellate contention: insufficiency of the evidence to support burglary and conspiracy convictions (and thus the §9711(d)(6) aggravator) — raising derivative challenges to the death sentence — together with claims of waived trial errors (sidebars not transcribed, stun belt, prosecutorial remarks, jury life‑qualification, omitted instructions).
Issues
| Issue | Sanchez's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Sufficiency of evidence for burglary / conspiracy to commit burglary (and §9711(d)(6) aggravator) | Evidence failed to prove unprivileged entry or intent to commit a crime inside; therefore felony‑murder aggravator (perpetration of a felony) does not apply | Martinez’s testimony and other circumstantial evidence (deceptive phone call, circuitous approach, Appellant’s conduct, positioning, disguise of voice, statements urging Miranda to "fight") supported deception, shared intent, and conspiracy | Evidence sufficient: burglary and conspiracy convictions upheld; §9711(d)(6) aggravator properly considered; no relief on death penalty ground |
| 2) Multiple conspiracy convictions (multiplicity) | Only one conspiracy could be proven; multiple conspiracy convictions inflated culpability and prejudiced penalty phase | Evidence supported separate conspiratorial agreements (limited plan with Martinez for deceptive entry; separate conduct with Miranda producing homicide); Commonwealth did not emphasize multiple conspiracies at penalty phase | Multiple conspiracy convictions upheld on sufficiency grounds; Court rejects claim of prejudice at sentencing |
| 3) Voluntary intoxication jury instruction | Sanchez argued intoxication evidence warranted instruction to reduce culpability/negate specific intent | Sanchez pursued an innocence defense (denied committing killings); no request or contemporaneous objection to charge; diminished‑capacity instruction unavailable absent admission | Waived; and on merits no entitlement where defendant maintains innocence; no relief |
| 4) Lesser‑included offense instruction (voluntary manslaughter) | Trial court denied a requested voluntary manslaughter instruction; its omission prejudiced guilt and penalty phases | Record ambiguous as to preservation but court treated issue on merits; evidence did not support heat‑of‑passion or imperfect self‑defense because Sanchez denied killing and victims were not exercising deadly force | No instruction warranted; denial did not prejudice sentence; claim rejected |
| 5) Prosecutorial misconduct during closing and cross‑examination (calling Sanchez a liar; comment about lack of remorse; demeanor toward defendant) | Prosecutor improperly vouched for witnesses, expressed personal opinion, and attacked Sanchez’s character; remarks and demeanor inflamed jury | Comments were fair response to defense attacks on Commonwealth witnesses; prosecutor attacked credibility (permitted); single fleeting remark about remorse cured by sustaining objection; cross‑examination fair | No reversible misconduct; trial court did not abuse discretion in overruling objections or declining curative instruction |
| 6) Waiver and incomplete record (off‑the‑record sidebars; stun belt; life‑qualification of jurors) | Missing sidebar transcripts and unruled motions prevent appellate review; stun belt use and limited voir dire undermined fairness and the PPA statutory review | Appellant failed to preserve these issues at trial (no contemporaneous objections); many claims waived; trial court did not err in holding counsel absent for preliminary hearing was later cured by a second preliminary hearing | Most of these claims deemed waived; appellate court enforces preservation rules (Freeman); no remand to reconstruct record; no relief |
| 7) Constitutional challenge to Pennsylvania’s weighing instruction (§9711(c)(1)(iv)) | Statute does not require jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that aggravators outweigh mitigators — violates Ring/Apprendi/In re Winship | Pennsylvania precedent governs; weighing is a moral judgment, not a factual finding requiring reasonable‑doubt proof | Claim rejected under binding precedent (Roney); no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Staton, 38 A.3d 785 (Pa. 2012) (standard for sua sponte sufficiency review in capital cases)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915 (Pa. 2009) (inference of intent to kill from use of deadly weapon on a vital part)
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 960 A.2d 59 (Pa. 2008) (credibility and circumstantial evidence principles)
- Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025 (Pa. 2007) (circumstantial evidence and vouching/vouching doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Freeman, 827 A.2d 385 (Pa. 2003) (abolishing relaxed waiver in capital direct appeals; preservation required)
- Commonwealth v. Roney, 866 A.2d 851 (Pa. 2005) (rejecting reasonable‑doubt requirement for weighing aggravators vs. mitigators)
- Commonwealth v. Andrews, 768 A.2d 309 (Pa. 2001) (analysis of single vs. multiple conspiracies and Section 903(c))
- Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 25 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2011) (diminished‑capacity/voluntary intoxication instruction law)
- Commonwealth v. Galvin, 985 A.2d 783 (Pa. 2009) (voluntary intoxication: mere consumption insufficient)
- Commonwealth v. Tilley, 595 A.2d 575 (Pa. 1991) (imperfect self‑defense doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. White, 275 A.2d 75 (Pa. 1971) (no manslaughter instruction required where defendant denies shooting)
- Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 454 A.2d 937 (Pa. 1982) (approving Pennsylvania’s post‑Furman death‑penalty scheme)
- Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 846 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2004) (statutory review: vacatur where sentencing outcome infected by arbitrary factors)
- Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (Eighth Amendment concerns about arbitrary imposition of death penalty)
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (upholding guided‑discretion capital statutes and discussing appellate safeguards)