In Re RD
44 A.3d 657
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant RD, a minor, was adjudicated delinquent after evidence showed he attempted to kill his former girlfriend S.D. by striking her with a hammer and assaulting her on October 31, 2007.
- The incident occurred on a path near trolley tracks in Mt. Lebanon; after the attack, RD discarded S.D.'s damaged phone and stated he wanted to kill himself.
- Detective Carpico observed RD and S.D. on the path; RD pulled S.D. down an embankment and attempted to retrieve something from his backpack before S.D. escaped and sought help.
- S.D. was transported to a hospital with scalp lacerations, facial injuries, tooth looseness, and orbital fractures; a trolley struck RD later, causing RD to suffer severe injuries and amnesia about the events.
- RD was originally charged as an adult, decertified, and transferred to juvenile court, where he faced counts including criminal attempt to commit homicide and aggravated assault; after a three-day adjudication, RD was found delinquent and placed in a youth development center, later the subject of appellate challenges alleging ineffective assistance and other errors.
- The Superior Court conducted an evidentiary hearing and ultimately affirmed the dispositional order, rejecting RD's claims of incompetence, ineffective assistance, Brady violation, evidentiary errors, and sufficiency challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence and amnesia | RD's amnesia rendered him incompetent and counsel ineffective for not raising competence sua sponte. | Amnesia alone does not establish incompetence; RD retained capacity to understand proceedings and assist counsel. | No reversible error; RD competent and counsel not deficient. |
| Failure to present character evidence | Character witnesses could have cast doubt on guilt and supported a lesser-included offense | Counsel had strategic reasons and the evidence would not have changed the outcome given overwhelming facts | Defense counsel's failure to call character witnesses was not prejudicial; no error requiring relief. |
| Chronology of trolley incident and effectiveness | Defense failed to challenge the timing of RD's trolley act and failed to introduce 911 call evidence that could support RD’s timeline | Trial record supported the court’s chronology; any failure to introduce 911 transcripts did not prejudice | Claims of ineffective assistance on chronology are waived or unpersuasive; record supports the court’s timing finding. |
| Brady violation and impeachment | Commonwealth suppressed evidence that S.D.'s family hired civil counsel, which could impeach credibility | No Brady violation; information was not in exclusive possession; impeachment still would not change outcome | No Brady violation; no prejudice from failure to impeach with civil-suit evidence. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder | Sufficient evidence showed intent and substantial steps toward killing S.D. | Evidence did not meet the statutory substantial-step/intent requirements beyond reasonable doubt | Sufficient evidence supported the adjudication for attempted murder. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Barky, 476 Pa. 602 (Pa. 1978) (amnesia alone does not render incompetent to stand trial; memory loss must affect understanding)
- Commonwealth v. Epps, 411 A.2d 536 (Pa. Super. 1979) (memory loss alone not incompetence; must impair ability to understand proceedings or assist counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Price, 421 Pa. 396 (Pa. 1966) (amnesia cases distinguishable from true incompetence; amnesia affecting memory alone not enough)
- Commonwealth v. Luther, 317 Pa. Super. 41 (Pa. Super. 1983) (good character evidence is substantive and may create reasonable doubt)
- In re A.D., 771 A.2d 45 (Pa. Super. 2001) (presumption of effectiveness of counsel; framework for evaluating ineffectiveness claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance; reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 765 A.2d 306 (Pa. Super. 2000) (trial court PCRA review of effectiveness aligned with reasonable probability standard)
- Commonwealth v. Nichols, 692 A.2d 181 (Pa. Super. 1997) (impeachment evidence and prejudice considerations; bias evidence must meaningfully affect guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Hanford, 937 A.2d 1094 (Pa. Super. 2007) (admissibility of civil-case bias evidence in impeachment)