Commonwealth v. Selenski
18 A.3d 1229
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Selenski was jury-convicted in Monroe County on kidnapping, robbery and related offenses for an January 27, 2003 Goosay home attack.
- During trial, the Commonwealth was allowed to use Luzerne County decedent testimony to identify Selenski by shoe prints and method of restraint linking to prior crimes.
- Luzerne County case involved two murders of small business owners restrained with duct tape and flex ties; Weakley v. Pa. Super. described probative identity value of similar methods.
- Sentencing imposed: 32.5 to 65 years’ imprisonment; post-sentence motions challenged evidentiary rulings, discovery issues, and verdict form.
- Appellant pursued four appellate issues: credibility-related expert testimony, 404(b) evidence from Luzerne County, discovery obligations, and verdict-slip format.
- The Superior Court denied relief, and denied Appellant’s request to substitute a reply brief; judgment of sentence affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to present defense with memory science | Selenski argues memory science aids credibility and defense | Commonwealth contends trial court properly restricted expert credibility testimony | No abuse; expert on eyewitness credibility not admissible |
| Admission of 404(b) evidence from Luzerne County | Selenski claims prejudice outweighs probative value | Commonwealth shows strong identity-based relevance | Evidence admissible under 404(b)(3) for identity |
| Prosecution discovery obligations | Commonwealth withheld exculpatory material | Arguments waived; evidence not properly asserted | Waived; even if argued, no relief warranted |
| Verdict slip format and presumption of innocence | Guilty-first format impairs presumption of innocence | No authority shows error; standard instructions given | No reversible error; verdict slip format not error |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McCloy, 393 Pa. Super. 217, 574 A.2d 86 (Pa. Super. 1990) (expert qualification and abuse of discretion standard)
- Commonwealth v. D.J.A., 800 A.2d 965 (Pa. Super. 2002) (witness credibility not for expert testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Spence, 627 A.2d 1176 (Pa. 1993) (jury credibility intact; no expert on credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 5 A.3d 339 (Pa. Super. 2010) ( eyewitness ID standards remain jury function)
- Commonwealth v. Weakley, 972 A.2d 1182 (Pa. Super. 2009) (404(b) identity evidence; strong similarities support admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 836 A.2d 966 (Pa. Super. 2003) (404(b) admissibility balancing considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Aikens, 990 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)