Commonwealth v. Szakal
50 A.3d 210
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Appellant Gerald Szakal convicted at trial of two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of robbery, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, and two counts of conspiracy for the March 5, 2008 shootings of the Springers in Carroll Township, Washington County.
- Commonwealth alleged Szakal acted alone to rob and murder to cover up a prior theft; co-defendants Justin Welch, Gregory Carpenter, and Tecko Tartt allegedly aided and were paid from robbery proceeds.
- Judgment sentenced October 28, 2009 to concurrent life terms for the murders and a consecutive 20–40 year term for other offenses; on merger, robbery/theft counts were vacated and Szakal was resentenced to two concurrent life terms.
- Appellant timely filed post-sentence motions; on appeal, he raised multiple claims including alleged transcript alteration, ineffective appellate assistance, mistrials, jury instructions, suppression, and admission of expert testimony.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed and found meaningful appellate review possible given the existence of a transcript; ultimately rejected the substantive claims and affirmed the judgment of sentence.
- Before this disposition, the trial court and this Court addressed issues of transcript availability, preservation, and the propriety of rulings related to mistrials, jury instructions, suppression, and expert testimony; no relief was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaningful appellate review despite alleged transcript alterations | Szakal claims transcripts were altered to hinder appeal | Commonwealth argues transcript provided and review possible | No reversible error; meaningful review possible; claims denied |
| Mistrial denial after juror outburst during voir dire | Outburst tainted venire; mistrial required | Trial court did not abuse discretion; limited impact | Not entitled to relief; denial affirmed |
| Mistrial denial after a witness spoke to jurors during recess | Prejudicial ex parte contact warranted mistrial | No prejudice; colloquy shown impartial jurors | No relief; no reversible error |
| Prosecutor's closing remarks shifting burden of proof | Remarks impermissibly shifted burden | Curative instruction mitigated error; remarks within wide latitude | No reversible error; instruction cured defect |
| Suppression motion under six-hour rule and totality of the circumstances | Statement and photographs should be suppressed | Perez totality of circumstances governs; waiver | Waived and/or harmless; Perez totality rule applied; no suppression error |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Shields, 383 A.2d 844 (Pa. 1978) (necessity of full transcript for meaningful appellate review when transcript is incomplete)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 500 A.2d 102 (Pa. Super. 1985) (meaningful review possible where transcript exists)
- Commonwealth v. Gibson, 688 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 1997) (juror exposure to prejudicial comments; approach to mistrial)
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 845 A.2d 779 (Pa. 2004) (totality of circumstances test for pre-arraignment statements)
- Commonwealth v. Honesty, 1283 (Pa. Super. 2004) (timing of mistrial motions and preservation)
- Commonwealth v. Messersmith, 860 A.2d 1078 (Pa. Super. 2004) (no impeachment rule and extraneous influences in deliberations; narrow exception)
- Commonwealth v. Bracey, 831 A.2d 678 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for mistrial and prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Dixon, 385 A.2d 385 (Pa. Super. 1978) (transcript completeness and appellate review)