Commonwealth v. Smallwood
155 A.3d 1054
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 1973 Letitia Smallwood was convicted of arson and two counts of first-degree murder; sentences included life imprisonment. Her conviction became final in 1976.
- Smallwood filed an initial post-conviction petition in 1979 and was denied; the Supreme Court affirmed in 1982.
- In 1999 Smallwood saw a TV program about advances in fire investigation (featuring Dr. Gerald Hurst) and thereafter sought experts and counsel to challenge the original arson finding under modern fire-science standards (NFPA 921).
- In March 2014 Smallwood filed a second PCRA petition relying on an affidavit from Dr. Jason Sutula (Feb. 18, 2014) applying NFPA 921 (2014 edition) and opining the fire’s cause is ‘‘undetermined’’ and that the original investigator’s incendiary conclusion was premature.
- The PCRA court found Smallwood established the newly-discovered-facts exception (42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii)) and granted a new trial; the Commonwealth appealed.
- The Superior Court held the petition untimely: Smallwood knew (or had reason to know) of the NFPA 921 methodology by 1999, so she failed to show the requisite due diligence and the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Smallwood's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smallwood met the § 9545(b)(1)(ii) newly-discovered-facts exception and 60-day filing requirement | The relevant new fact is the NFPA 921-based expert application (Dr. Sutula’s affidavit); petition filed within 60 days of that expert report | NFPA 921 and the scientific method have been public since 1992 and Smallwood knew of them by 1999; a new expert opinion on old facts does not reset the time-bar; she failed due diligence | Held for Commonwealth: petitioner failed to prove due diligence; petition untimely; PCRA court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether the after-discovered evidence was only for impeachment (and thus insufficient to merit a new trial) | Dr. Sutula’s opinions would undercut the Commonwealth’s arson proof and likely change the outcome | Evidence primarily impeaches prior investigative conclusions and does not supply a new affirmative exculpatory fact | Not reached on merits because timeliness/jurisdictional defect disposes of appeal |
| Whether expert-shopping or later refinements to NFPA 921 satisfy timeliness | Smallwood argued developments and a definitive 2014 expert report triggered the 60-day clock | Commonwealth argued any refinements did not create a previously unknown fact; expert-shopping is not diligence | Held for Commonwealth: refinements and new expert sourcing do not create a newly-discovered fact for § 9545(b)(1)(ii) |
| Whether the petition was likely to result in a new trial | Smallwood argued modern methodology would render original arson conclusion unreliable and change juror outcome | Commonwealth emphasized untimeliness and that any new evidence mainly impeaches witness/investigator credibility | Not decided on merits due to jurisdictional ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214 (Pa. 1999) (PCRA time limits are jurisdictional; equitable tolling not available)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (if newly-discovered-facts exception proved, PCRA court gains jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (publication of a scientific report already based on public-domain information does not necessarily create a newly-discovered fact)
- Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 (Pa. 2016) (delay in pursuing available forensic testing precludes finding of due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Stokes, 959 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2008) (knowledge of existence of files or facts, without prompt effort to obtain them, negates due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 994 A.2d 1091 (Pa. 2010) (60-day filing requirement tied to date claim could have been presented)