44 A.3d 657
Pa. Super. Ct.2012Background
- Appellant, a minor, was adjudicated delinquent for attempted homicide and related offenses based on a Oct. 31, 2007 assault on S.D. with a hammer along a path near trolley tracks.
- Detective Carpico and trolley operator Johnson observed escalating events; S.D. escaped to safety with a hammer and injuries documented, and Appellant was later struck by a trolley, suffering amnesia.
- Appellant previously faced adult charges decertified to juvenile court; after adjudication in Aug. 2009 and a dispositional hearing in Oct. 2009, the court committed him to a Youth Development Center with later appeals on ineffective assistance claims.
- A post-evidentiary record (Dec. 2010) addressed competence, with experts testifying memory loss but retained rational understanding and ability to assist counsel; the court found competence.
- Appellant argued multiple ineffective-assistance theories (competence, character evidence, discovery, chronology, and other trial-matrix issues) and various due process and dispositive errors; the Superior Court reviewed and affirmed the dispositional order, declining relief.
- Appellant later sought to challenge dispositional-review provisions and potential Fifth Amendment issues; the court found some issues moot or waived but still reviewed post-dispositional standards under the Juvenile Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel ineffective for failing to seek incompetency finding | Commonwealth argues amnesia alone does not render incompetent; no sua sponte competence concerns warranted. | Appellant contends severe brain injury and amnesia prevented defense cooperation; court should have sua sponte ordered competency evaluation. | No error; amnesia alone did not render incompetent; competence found. |
| Was counsel ineffective for not presenting good character evidence | Commonwealth notes strategic/policy reasons and lack of prejudice given overwhelming evidence. | Appellant asserts character witnesses could have created reasonable doubt and defense strategy favored lesser-included charge. | No reversible prejudice; trial court properly found no reasonable probability of different outcome; failure not ineffective. |
| Was counsel ineffective regarding the 911/chronology evidence and its impact on the trolley encounter | Commonwealth contends chronology credibility was for the factfinder; any error was harmless given strength of evidence. | Appellant asserts defense was prejudiced by mis-timing of events and failure to present contrary chronology witnesses. | Appellant's ineffective-assistance claim on chronology is waived; evidence supports the court's timing finding. |
| Did the Commonwealth violate Brady/Giglio by not disclosing civil-suit counsel involvement and failing to impeach | Commonwealth contends civil-suit facts were not in its exclusive possession and not material to due process. | Appellant asserts discovery was incomplete and impeachment material was suppressed or not adequately pursued. | No Brady violation; failure to impeach with civil-suit evidence not prejudicial under the circumstances. |
| Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the attempted-murder adjudication | Commonwealth argues substantial steps and deadly-weapon use, predatory conduct, and intent supported by multiple facts (back-of-head strike, luring, equipment, and suicide threat). | Appellant challenges sufficiency of causation/intent; argues misinterpreted facts and reliance on misquoted testimony. | Evidence was sufficient to sustain delinquency for attempted murder. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Barky, 476 Pa. 602, 383 A.2d 526 (Pa. 1978) (amnesia alone not incompetence; memory loss not fatal to fair defense)
- Commonwealth v. Epps, 270 Pa. Super. 295, 411 A.2d 534 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979) (competence requires more than memory loss; rational understanding matters)
- Commonwealth v. Price, 421 Pa. 396, 218 A.2d 758 (Pa. 1966) (amnesia not per se incompetent; capacity to understand proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Luther, 317 Pa. Super. 41, 463 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (good character as substantive evidence; not always decisive)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (U.S. 1984) (test for ineffective assistance requires prejudice; reasonable probability standard)
- Commonwealth v. Nock, 414 Pa. Super. 326, 606 A.2d 1380 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) (post-conviction prejudice standard; proper prejudice inquiry remains)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 765 A.2d 306 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) (PCRA evidentiary-review standard; trust trial court's fact-finding in collateral context)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 26 A.3d 485 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (Fifth Amendment rights in probation/post-disposition context; balancing treatment goals)