Commonwealth v. Wantz
84 A.3d 324
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Wantz challenged March 7, 2013 PCRA denial following an ineffective-assistance claim.
- In Jan. 2005, J.W. suffered severe brain injury while in Wantz’s care; arbitration of timing and cause disputed.
- J.W. was transported to Hershey Medical Center; Wantz did not accompany him.
- CYS investigated; Wantz admitted to a caseworker that he might have caused the injury.
- A handwritten confession note and a police-station note followed in 2005.
- PCRA petition asserted counsel failed to call Dr. Callery at retrial; evidentiary hearing held in 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prejudice standard for missing-witness claim | Wantz argues Sneed misapplied prejudice | Wantz contends Matías requires different standard | No variance; standard applied properly |
| Prejudice based on absent Dr. Callery testimony | Callery would have harmed Commonwealth's case timing | Testimony would not yield different outcome | No reasonable probability of different result |
| Admissibility of hearsay reports at PCRA hearing | Detective’s report and Zimmerman report were hearsay | Admission for strategy/prejudice purposes allowed | No error; admissible for non-truth purpose under rules |
| Confrontation Clause applicability in PCRA proceedings | Confrontation rights violated by hearsay evidence | Confrontation clause not applicable in collateral review | Lacks merit; Confrontation Clause not invoked in PCRA |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sneed, 616 Pa. 1, 45 A.3d 1096 (Pa. 2012) (prejudice for missing-witness claims requires likely impact on outcome)
- Commonwealth v. Gibson, 597 Pa. 402, 951 A.2d 1110 (Pa. 2008) (hypothetical trial considerations for missing-witness prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Auker, 545 Pa. 521, 681 A.2d 1305 (Pa. 1996) (beneficial/tested helpful to defense standard in prejudice analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Natividad, 595 Pa. 188, 938 A.2d 310 (Pa. 2007) (Strickland prejudice framework in PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Steele, 599 Pa. 341, 961 A.2d 786 (Pa. 2008) (Strickland procedural standards in PCRA context)
- Commonwealth v. Dennis, 597 Pa. 159, 950 A.2d 945 (Pa. 2008) (ineffective assistance framework guidance)
- Commonwealth v. Franklin, 990 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super. 2010) (PCRA prejudice/strategy considerations (Pa. Superior))
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 585 Pa. 45, 888 A.2d 564 (Pa. 2005) (Confrontation-rights limitations in collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Gribble, 580 Pa. 647, 863 A.2d 455 (Pa. 2004) (Crawford applicability in collateral review)
- Gibson (Pa. Sup. Ct.), 597 Pa. 402, 951 A.2d 1110 (Pa. 2008) (illustrative discussion of hypothetical trial analysis)
- Matías, 63 A.3d 807 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc; missing-witness prejudice evaluated against likely outcome)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay and confrontation analysis)