Commonwealth v. Walsh, 125 A.3d 1248

Background

In October 2003 Thomas A. Walsh (Appellant) violated parole and a PFA by appearing at his estranged wife Dinah Walsh’s home; he then assaulted her while wielding a claw hammer, breaking car windows and inflicting wounds. Appellant admitted smashing the car windows and made post-arrest statements admitting the attack; eyewitnesses testified he struck the victim with the hammer.
The Commonwealth recovered the hammer at the scene and introduced it into evidence at trial. At a May 2004 jury trial Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and related offenses and was sentenced to 13–37 years’ imprisonment; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Appellant pursued multiple post-conviction collateral petitions between 2005 and 2014 without obtaining DNA testing of the hammer; on November 7, 2014 he filed a motion under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543.1 seeking DNA testing of the hammer to show the absence of the victim’s DNA and to establish actual innocence.
The PCRA court denied the § 9543.1 motion, finding Appellant failed to meet statutory threshold requirements, did not make a prima facie showing that exculpatory DNA would establish actual innocence, and that the request was untimely under § 9543.1(d).
The Superior Court affirmed: it limited review to the § 9543.1 DNA-testing request (rejecting collateral ineffective-assistance/Brady arguments raised to evade PCRA timeliness), and agreed that absence of the victim’s DNA on the hammer would not establish Appellant’s actual innocence of aggravated assault given the eyewitness testimony and Appellant’s own admissions.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether PCRA court erred by denying § 9543.1 DNA testing of the hammer	Walsh: testing would show victim’s DNA is absent from the hammer and therefore would establish his actual innocence of aggravated assault	DNA testing was unavailable as a route to innocence because (1) statutory threshold not met, (2) even exculpatory DNA would not establish actual innocence, and (3) request was untimely and seeks delay	Denied — Walsh failed to satisfy § 9543.1(a)(2) thresholds, did not present prima facie showing that exculpatory DNA would establish actual innocence, and the motion was untimely under § 9543.1(d)
Whether Appellant may raise ineffective-assistance or Brady claims within § 9543.1 motion	Walsh attempted to claim trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain DNA testing and alleged Brady suppression to avoid the PCRA time bar	Such collateral claims are not cognizable within a § 9543.1 DNA-motion and must be raised in a timely PCRA petition	Rejected — § 9543.1 cannot be used to evade PCRA timeliness; collateral claims must be raised separately in a timely PCRA petition
Whether absence of victim’s DNA on the hammer would be dispositive	Walsh: absence of victim DNA would show he did not strike her, only the car, negating aggravated assault	Commonwealth: identity/participation was not the dispositive issue; eyewitnesses, defendant’s admissions and weapon possession link Walsh to the assault regardless of DNA on the hammer	Rejected — absence of DNA would not establish actual innocence of aggravated assault given the trial evidence
Whether the motion was timely under § 9543.1(d)	Walsh: filed 2014; argued grounds for testing now	Commonwealth: evidence and testing availability existed at trial; Walsh had opportunities earlier; late filing appears intended to delay	Denied — motion untimely under § 9543.1(d) in light of facts, prior proceedings, and Edmiston guidance

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Brooks, 875 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. 2005) (PCRA one-year bar inapplicable to § 9543.1 motions but DNA statute cannot be used to circumvent PCRA timeliness)
Commonwealth v. Gandy, 38 A.3d 899 (Pa. Super. 2012) (§ 9543.1 cannot be used to raise unrelated collateral claims to avoid PCRA time bar)
Commonwealth v. B. Williams, 35 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2011) (denial of DNA testing affirmed where petitioner failed threshold showings and overwhelming evidence of guilt made testing unlikely to exonerate)
Commonwealth v. G. Williams, 909 A.2d 383 (Pa. Super. 2006) (DNA testing not warranted where participation/identity was not the dispositive issue and testing would not establish innocence)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 889 A.2d 582 (Pa. Super. 2005) (absence of DNA on evidence does not necessarily establish innocence where record does not support inference DNA would be present)
Commonwealth v. Heilman, 867 A.2d 542 (Pa. Super. 2005) (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; DNA-negative results insufficient where other strong evidence of guilt exists)
Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339 (Pa. 2013) (timeliness and purpose under § 9543.1(d) require courts to reject belated DNA motions made to delay when evidence and testing opportunities existed earlier)