Commonwealth v. Stetler
95 A.3d 864
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Stephen H. Stetler, a former state representative and HDCC chair, was convicted by a jury of conflict of interest, four counts of theft (various theories), and conspiracy based on using taxpayer-funded legislative staff and resources for campaign/HDCC work (2004–2006).
- Trial court sentenced Stetler to an aggregate 18 to 60 months imprisonment and ordered $466,621.45 restitution (subject to modification); amended one count to 14–48 months less one day.
- Prosecution evidence: testimony and emails showing legislative staff performed fundraising, opposition research, and other campaign work during legislative hours; use of LexisNexis and comp time; supervisors encouraged or acquiesced; HDCC benefited by avoiding paying for services.
- Defense raised many issues: (1) judge communicated with jury in deliberations outside presence of defendant/counsel; (2) insufficiency of evidence on conflict/theft/conspiracy counts; (3) destruction/non‑disclosure of AG interview notes (Pa.R.Crim.P. 573/Brady); (4) admission/availability to jury of a chart not formally admitted; (5) restitution improper or unsupported.
- Trial court (President Judge Hoover) denied defendant’s motions pretrial and at trial, found discovery obligations met, allowed judge-with-counsel contact with jury (with counsel’s permission), admitted evidentiary record supported convictions, and imposed restitution under the Crimes Code; Superior Court affirmed adopting the trial court’s detailed opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Stetler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Judge’s in-chambers communications with jury during deliberations | Arrangement was permissible where counsel consented and record exists; court correctly answered juror questions and limited legal definitions | Trial court deprived him of right to counsel/fair trial by meeting jury outside presence of defendant and counsel and answering law/fact questions | Waived at trial (no contemporaneous objection); court’s responses were appropriate and non-prejudicial; relief denied |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence for conflict of interest/theft/conspiracy | Evidence (testimony, emails, exhibits) established use of office/employee time and resources for private pecuniary benefit (HDCC and re-election); conspiracy shown circumstantially | Argued evidence insufficient to prove statutory elements (and Commonwealth can’t be victim for certain theft statutes) | Sufficient evidence for conflict, multiple theft theories, and conspiracy; Commonwealth can be a victim under theft statutes |
| 3. Discovery / destroyed proffer notes (Brady / Pa.R.Crim.P. 573) | Commonwealth satisfied disclosure obligations and provided relevant ROIs/notes; many interview notes were informal summaries not discoverable | Prosecutors destroyed/interfered with witness interview notes and proffers, violating disclosure obligations and rule 573 | Court properly denied motion to compel; informal investigator notes not discoverable under Rule 573; no Brady violation shown |
| 4. Jury access to a prosecution chart not admitted into evidence | Chart summarized testimony and was used only as deliberative aid; court cautioned jury to rely on testimony/notes; counsel consented | Allowing chart into deliberations denied due process and prejudiced defendant | Permissible: chart was aid, counsel consented, jury instructed to rely on testimony and notes; any error harmless given overwhelming admissible evidence |
| 5. Restitution amount and recipient | Restitution reflects trial evidence valuing diverted taxpayer-funded services/resources; restitution statute mandates full restitution regardless of current resources | Restitution unsupported by record and improper as awarded to an entity not recognized for restitution; trial court should consider defendant’s ability to pay | Restitution order upheld: amount supported by trial evidence; Crimes Code requires full restitution and ability-to-pay considered on default; amount may be modified but sentence legal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 828 A.2d 1009 (Pa. 2003) (judge–jury communications and record of interactions examined for fairness)
- Commonwealth v. Habay, 934 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2007) (conflict‑of‑interest statute construed; use of legislative staff for campaign work supports private pecuniary benefit)
- Commonwealth v. Paddy, 15 A.3d 431 (Pa. 2011) (Brady burden and prejudice standards)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (limits on defendant’s right to search state files for relevance; balancing disclosure obligations)
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (selective prosecution is not a jury question; not a defense on the merits)