Commonwealth v. Small, E., Aplt.
189 A.3d 961
Pa.2018Background
- Victim William Price was killed by a contact gunshot to the head outside a nightclub; identity of the shooter was the central issue at trial.
- Commonwealth presented multiple witnesses placing Eric Small (appellant) with Price moments before the shooting and two inmates who testified Small confessed in jail; forensic evidence indicated a contact wound.
- Defense theory emphasized Pedro Espada as the shooter and presented testimony that Espada had confessed to others (Dotson, Spriggs); Espada was in the vicinity at the time.
- After conviction and direct appeals, appellant filed a PCRA petition based on after-discovered evidence: Kenosha (Kenosha/Keaosha) Tyson executed an affidavit in 2015 stating Espada admitted to her, hours after the murder—a statement she had not told police or testified to at trial.
- The PCRA court granted a new trial, finding Tyson’s affidavit met the four-part test for after-discovered evidence (could not have been discovered earlier, not merely cumulative, not solely impeachment, likely to change the verdict); the Superior Court reversed, holding Tyson’s testimony was merely cumulative/corroborative and lacked corroboration for admissibility.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal to clarify the meaning of “merely corroborative or cumulative” in the after-discovered evidence context and remanded for limited further proceedings focused on credibility/admissibility of Tyson’s claimed recantation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Small) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tyson's after-discovered affidavit/testimony that Espada confessed is "merely corroborative or cumulative" of evidence presented at trial | Tyson's testimony is materially different and of a higher grade: more detailed, from a closer/confidential source (mother of Espada's children), and thus not merely cumulative and would likely change the verdict | Tyson's claim duplicates confessions already in the record (Dotson, Spriggs/Neal) and is therefore wholly cumulative/corroborative and insufficient for relief | Court explains rule: new evidence is "merely" cumulative/corroborative when it is of the same character and to the same material point; evidence of a higher/different grade on the same point may overcome the bar. Applied here, Tyson's statement is a recantation of a prior statement and its credibility must be assessed. Court vacated Superior Court and remanded for credibility/admissibility findings |
| Whether the PCRA court adequately assessed credibility and admissibility (Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3)) of Tyson's recantation before granting a new trial | PCRA court implicitly treated the evidence as potentially dispositive without expressly finding Tyson credible or that her statement would be admissible at a new trial | Commonwealth argued the PCRA court failed to consider the hearsay-against-penal-interest admissibility requirements and made no credibility finding, so relief was erroneous | Court held prior precedents require the PCRA court to make an explicit credibility determination on recantation evidence (and then assess admissibility); remanded for limited further proceedings to make those findings rather than assume credibility from the grant of relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 950 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2008) (articulates four-part after-discovered evidence test)
- Commonwealth v. McCracken, 659 A.2d 541 (Pa. 1995) (recantation may be non-cumulative where circumstantial connection to defendant is tenuous)
- Commonwealth v. Schuck, 164 A.2d 13 (Pa. 1960) (early formulation of requirements for after-discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Cooney, 282 A.2d 29 (Pa. 1971) (new physical evidence of higher grade warranted new trial)
- Commonwealth v. Valderrama, 388 A.2d 1042 (Pa. 1978) (new documentary evidence not merely cumulative where it could negate prosecution proof)
- Commonwealth v. Bulted, 279 A.2d 158 (Pa. 1971) (previously absent witness testimony can be non-cumulative and justify new trial)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1999) (recantation testimony is inherently unreliable and PCRA court must assess credibility)
- Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806 (Pa. 2004) (PCRA court must evaluate credibility and significance of recantation in the context of the whole record)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017) (PCRA review standards; applicability of after-discovered evidence test)