COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. William CHILDS, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued March 9, 2016. Decided July 19, 2016.
142 A.3d 823
Karl Baker, Esq., Peter Rosalsky, Esq., Defender Association of Philadelphia, for William Childs.
SAYLOR, C.J., EAKIN, BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, JJ.
OPINION
Justice DONOHUE.
In this appeal by the Commonwealth, we are asked to determine whether William Childs (“Childs“) was entitled to a castle doctrine1 jury instruction pursuant to
In July 2010, Childs was residing with Michael Beander (“Beander“) and Samuel Andrews (“Andrews“) in Andrews’ house. On July 29, 2010, Andrews invited Bryant Bell (“Victim“) to come over to celebrate Victim‘s birthday. All four men were socializing in the residence when Childs and Victim began to argue. During the argument, Victim called Childs, who has a spinal cord injury and uses a cane, a cripple. Upset by the encounter, Andrews told Victim to leave. Beander and Victim exited the residence and sat on the front steps, while Andrews retreated to his bedroom. Childs remained in the house.
Almost immediately, Childs and Victim restarted their argument, trading insults and threats through the screen door. After a few minutes of this back-and-forth, Victim ascended the stairs, picked up a broomstick that had been sitting on the porch, and approached the door. Victim overcame Childs’ efforts to hold the screen door closed and entered the residence. Victim struck Childs with the broomstick several times before Childs stabbed Victim in the chest. Although Childs stabbed Victim only once, Victim died from this wound. Childs was arrested and charged with homicide and possessing instruments of crime (“PIC“).2
On June 28, 2011, the legislature passed Act 2011-10, H.B. No. 40 (“Act 10“),3 amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. Of relevance to the present case, Act 10 included amendments to
Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.2), an actor is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat if both of the following conditions exist:
(i) The person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within, a dwell-ing, residence or occupied vehicle; or the person against whom the force is used is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other‘s will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.
(ii) The actor knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred.
In November 2011, Childs was tried on the murder and PIC charges stemming from Victim‘s death. This trial resulted in a conviction on the PIC charge, but the jury deadlocked on the homicide charge. In November 2012, Childs was tried again on the homicide charge. At both trials, Childs claimed that he acted in self-defense and requested a castle doctrine jury instruction in conformance with section 505(b)(2.1), providing that there is a presumption that he had a reasonable belief that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect himself from serious bodily
Childs appealed. The sole question before the Superior Court was whether the trial court correctly concluded that section 505(b)(2.1) should not be applied retroactively. The Superior Court noted that “the law of retroactivity is less than a model of clarity” before undertaking a thorough discussion tracing the history of the prohibition against the retroactive application of legislation and the exceptions thereto.6 The Superior Court began by recognizing that “a statute is impermissibly retroactive if it ‘attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment. Retroactive application occurs only when the statute or rule relates back and gives a previous transaction a legal effect different from that which it had under the law in effect when it transpired.‘” Commonwealth v. Childs, 272 EDA 2013, 2014 WL 10788813, *7-8 (Pa.Super. Nov. 10, 2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Robinson, 7 A.3d 868, 871-72 (Pa.Super.2010)). The Superior Court further recognized that concerns of impermissible retroactive application arise only where the law at issue impairs a vested right or contractual obligation. Id. at *8 (citing Commonwealth v. Johnson, 520 Pa. 165, 553 A.2d 897 (1989)).
The Superior Court discussed the well-established principle that legislation that is procedural, as opposed to substantive, is not subject to the prohibition against the retroactive application of laws. While observing that “substantive laws are those which affect rights, while procedural laws are those which address methods by which rights are enforced,” it also recognized that “[t]he demarcation between substantive and procedural law is, ... at times[,]
With regard to the case at bar, the Superior Court concluded that section 505(b)(2.1) did not alter a defendant‘s rights concerning claims of self-defense premised on actions in the home. Id. at *25-26. It reasoned that section 505(b)(2.1) only “addresses a method of enforcing th[e] right of self-defense” and is therefore procedural. Id. at *27. Because there is no prohibition on the retroactive application of a procedural statute, the Superior Court reasoned, Childs was entitled to a jury instruction regarding the castle doctrine. On that basis, it vacated Childs’ judgment of sentence and remanded for a new trial.
In dissent, the Honorable Judge Eugene Strassburger reasoned that section 505(b)(2.1) is a substantive statute because, in his view, it “directly affect[s] the right of self-defense” because it governs when an actor may defend himself with deadly force. Id. at *1 (Strassburger, J., dissenting). Because the legislature did not expressly indicate its intent that section 505(b)(2.1) apply retroactively, Judge Strassburger concluded that the trial court did not err in refusing Childs’ requested jury instruction. Id. at *1-2
We granted allowance of appeal to consider whether the Superior Court erred in its interpretation of section 505(b)(2.1). “Statutory interpretation is a matter of law, and our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Spence, 625 Pa. 84, 91 A.3d 44, 46 (2014).
The Commonwealth advances three main arguments in support of its position. First, it argues that because the language of section 505(b)(2.1) does not explicitly provide that it should be applied to cases pending on the date of its enactment, it cannot be applied to Childs’ case. In this regard, it contends that Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 557 Pa. 453, 734 A.2d 840 (1999), is “highly instructive” on this point.7 Commonwealth‘s Brief at 11-12. The Commonwealth posits that if the legislature had wanted this provision to be applied to pending cases, it would have included language expressly providing for such application, but because it did not, we are bound to consider this omission as proof of its intent that the law not apply retroactively.
Finally, the Commonwealth disputes the Superior Court‘s determination that the doctrine of abatement permits the retroactive application of substantive statutes when they benefit criminal defendants. Commonwealth‘s Brief at 18-19. Citing Commonwealth v. Scoleri, 399 Pa. 110, 160 A.2d 215 (1960), the Commonwealth argues that “this Court held that a statute that benefitted defendants by preventing prejudicial evidence from being introduced at the guilt phase of trial court not be applied to pending cases because doing so would run afoul of the Statutory Construction Act.” Brief of the Commonwealth at 19 (emphasis in original).
In contrast, Childs argues that that the Superior Court was correct in its determination that section 505(b)(2.1) is procedural. Childs argues that this determination was accurate because section 505(b)(2.1) impacts how a jury reaches its decision, as opposed to what the jury must ultimately decide. Childs’ Brief at 18. Although the legislature did not explicitly provide that section 505(b)(2.1) applies retroactively, there is a necessary implication that it intended retroactive application. This implication, Childs argues, arises because the legislature drafted section 505(b)(2.1) to have no effect outside of trial, and from language contained in the preamble to Act 10, which states that the purpose of Act 10 was to codify the common law and constitutional rights of citizens to protect themselves in their homes. Lastly, Childs contends that even if we were to determine that section 505(b)(2.1) is substantive, it would still be applicable to him (as well as to other cases pending at the time of its enactment) pursuant to the doctrine of abatement. Id. at 27-29.
“The traditional common[ ]law castle doctrine is a basic tenet of American law: ‘The principle that a man‘s home is his castle is basic to our system of jurisprudence.‘” Wyatt Holliday, “The Answer to Criminal Aggression Is Retaliation“: Stand-Your-Ground Laws and the Liberalization of Self-Defense, 43 U. Tol. L.Rev. 407, 408 (2012) (quoting Lombard v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 267, 275, 83 S.Ct. 1122, 10 L.Ed.2d 338 (1963) (Douglas, J., concurring)). The ideological foundation for the castle doctrine is the belief that a person‘s home is his castle and that one should not be required to retreat from his sanctum. Denise M. Drake, The Castle Doctrine: An Ex-panding Right to Stand Your Ground, 39 St. Mary‘s L.J. 573, 584 (2008). The castle doctrine is often described as being of ancient origins. Joshua G. Light, The Castle Doctrine—The Lobby Is My Dwelling, 22 Widener L.J. 219, 221 (2012); see also H.B. 40 159th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Pa.2011). Indeed, a reference to this concept is found in the Bible: “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.” Exodus 22:2 (New American Standard Bible). When this Court addressed the castle doctrine in 1952, we explained that it “has always been recognized as the law in this State” and that the
Although the castle doctrine has existed at common law in this Commonwealth essentially since its founding, it was not codified in Pennsylvania until 1972, with the enactment of
(b) Limitations of justifying necessity for use of force:
* * *
(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:
* * *
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be[.]
This statute remained unchanged until the passage of Act 10 on June 28, 2011. The preamble to Act 10 explains that its purpose was to strengthen the right of self-defense. See H.B. 40 159th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Pa.2011). In so doing, however, Act 10 did not substantively alter the law regarding the use of deadly force within a residence. The statute, as amended by Act 10, provides as follows:
(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:
* * *
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating, except the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be.
Act 10 further amended section 505(b) to add six subsections. The subsections included the statute at issue in the present case, the relevant portion of which we reiterate:
Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.2), an actor is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat if both of the following conditions exist:
(i) The person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within, a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle....
(ii) The actor knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred.
In general terms, “a presumption is a standardized practice, under which certain facts are held to call for uniform treatment with respect to their effect as to proof of other facts.” 2 Kenneth S. Broun, et al., MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE 675-76 (7th ed.2013). Presumptions are “staples of our adversary system of factfinding.” Commonwealth v. MacPherson, 561 Pa. 571, 752 A.2d 384, 389 (2000) (quoting County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 156, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979)); see also City of Pittsburgh v. W.C.A.B. (Robinson), 620 Pa. 345, 67 A.3d 1194, 1204 (2013); Commonwealth v. Hall, 574 Pa. 233, 830 A.2d 537, 544 (2003). “It is often necessary for the trier of fact to determine the existence of an element of the crime—that is, an ‘ultimate’ or ‘elemental’ fact—from the existence of one or more ‘evidentiary’ or ‘basic’ facts.” MacPherson, 752 A.2d at 389 (quoting County Court of Ulster County, 442 U.S. at 156, 99 S.Ct. 2213). Presumptions and inferences8 are the evidentiary mechanisms that allow such determinations to be made. Hall, 830 A.2d at 544.
The presumption created by section 505(b)(2.1)9 codifies the inference between
Section 505(b)(2.1) does not, as the Commonwealth contends, broaden the rights of the accused when asserting a castle doctrine defense. Commonwealth‘s Brief at 14. To the contrary, both before and after the enactment of section 505(b)(2.1), a defendant was justified in using deadly force if he or she was not the initial aggressor and had a reasonable belief that such force was necessary to protect against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, and a defendant had no duty to retreat when attacked in his or her dwelling. Likewise, both before and after the enactment of section 505(b)(2.1), the Commonwealth could overcome a claim of self-defense under the castle doctrine by establishing that the defendant did not actually possess the requisite fear or that the defendant‘s belief was not reasonable.10 In sum, the section 505(b)(2.1) presumption does not alter either the elements of a castle doctrine defense or the historical right to use deadly force in one‘s home.11
As evidentiary mechanisms, presumptions have no effect unless or until they are implicated in the course of a criminal proceeding. This reality was recognized by the Superior Court in a case that involved a statute that provided a mechanism for the evaluation of evidence, although not a presumption. C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa.Super.2012), involved a custody action that commenced in 2008. In July 2010, the mother filed a petition seeking permission to relocate. At that time, relocation requests were governed by the three factors set forth in Gruber v. Gruber, 400 Pa.Super. 174, 583 A.2d 434 (1990), superseded by statute,
A similar issue was raised in Bethea v. Phila. AFL-CIO Hosp. Ass‘n, 871 A.2d 223 (Pa.Super.2005), appeal denied, 594 Pa. 684, 934 A.2d 71 (2007), a case involving a medical malpractice action filed prior to the enactment of the MCARE Act,
As a procedural statute, section 505(b)(2.1) applies to litigation pending at the time it is passed as well as litigation commenced after its enactment. Commonwealth v. Estman, 591 Pa. 116, 915 A.2d 1191, 1194 (2007). As both of Childs’ trials were held after its effective date, Childs was entitled to an instruction in conformance therewith. While both parties construct their arguments in terms of the retroactive application of section 505(b)(2.1) and the Superior Court addresses retroactivity in its decision, once the conclusion is made that the statute is procedural, the question of retroactive application is not truly at issue in this case. A fundamental principle of statutory construction is that all statutes are to be applied prospectively unless the legislature expressly provides for retroactive application.
As noted above, the Commonwealth argues that the evidentiary presumption contained in section 505(b)(2.1) must be read as having a substantive effect because it was “part of a ... comprehensive effort to revamp the law of self-defense” and broaden the substantive rights of the accused. Commonwealth‘s Brief at 14-15.14 The Commonwealth supports this claim by pointing to Morabito‘s Auto Sales, in which, according to the Commonwealth, this Court held that “a legislative presumption
In Morabito‘s Auto Sales, the eponymous used auto dealership was charged with violating a statute that required the timely filing and delivery of assigned certificates of title to the Department of Transportation (“DOT“). Because the violations involved the dealership‘s failure to timely submit documents, the exact dates when DOT received the documents in question were directly at issue. The records produced by DOT to establish these dates were illegible. The dealership objected to their admission because the work identification numbers, which indicate the date that DOT received the document, could not be read. The trial court agreed that the documents were illegible, but admitted the documents pursuant to section 1103.1(d.1) of the Vehicle Code. This provision of the Vehicle Code required DOT to stamp a document received from a dealer with a work identification number within one business day of receiving the document, and further provided that “if the displayed stamp is not legible, a certification by the department of the date that the application was received shall be accepted by ... [a] court as prima facie evidence of that date.”
In resolving the issue of whether the trial court erred in admitting the documents, this Court recognized that “the arguments ... focused largely on whether to classify ... section 1103.1(d.1) as ... substantive or procedural[,]” but did not find it necessary to resolve this question. Rather, we concluded that the “[t]he courts below have taken out of context the excerpt from subsection (d.1) on which they relied [ (the final sentence regarding illegibility and a certification by the DOT as prima facie evidence)] to allow admission of the documents.” Morabito‘s Auto Sales, 715 A.2d at 386. We held that this singular sentence, which allowed for a presumption, could not be read apart from the preceding language of subsection (d.1), which set forth the procedure for establishing the date of receipt of documents received from dealers. In other words, the presumption did not exist apart from the duty, and because the duty was not in effect at the time DOT provided the certifications (that is, DOT did not have an obligation to stamp the documents within one business day of receipt), there was no basis to apply the presumption that the documents were received within one business day of receipt. Id. at 387.
The situation in Morabito‘s Auto Sales is in obvious contrast to the present case. There has been no attempt to rely on or give effect to only a portion of section 505(b)(2.1), nor does the presumption codified in section 505(b)(2.1) apply only if certain other criteria are not met. Quite simply, our rationale in Morabito‘s Auto Sales cannot be extrapolated to apply to the case presently before us.15
Order affirmed.
Chief Justice SAYLOR and Justices BAER, TODD, DOUGHERTY and WECHT join the opinion.
Chief Justice SAYLOR files a concurring opinion.
Justice TODD files a concurring opinion.
Justice DOUGHERTY files a concurring opinion.
Chief Justice SAYLOR, concurring.
I join the majority opinion and write only to observe that, left to my own devices, I would move away from strict adherence to a substantive-procedural demarcation in connection with rules of evidence. The “procedural” label initially raises questions concerning legislative power to create evidentiary precepts, since this Court has maintained that its procedural rulemaking authority is exclusive. See Commonwealth v. McMullen, 599 Pa. 435, 444, 961 A.2d 842, 847 (2008). While the Court has abided an exception for evidentiary matters, I have previously observed that it has never offered a satisfactory reconciliation of such exception with a constitutionally derived exclusivity principle. See Commonwealth v. Olivo, 633 Pa. 617, 638, 127 A.3d 769, 781 (2015) (Saylor, C.J., concurring). To me, the solution lies in recognizing that there are mixed substantive-procedural dynamics to many evidentiary precepts, and in affording tolerance for shared powers in the absence of undue impingements upon the Court‘s constitutionally prescribed powers and prerogatives. See id.
From my point of view, it would be as well, in the present case, to simply decide that a statutory, rebuttable evidentiary presumption favorable to individual rights and liberties should be applied at the trial level at the earliest opportunity, absent explicit legislative direction to the contrary.
Justice TODD, concurring.
I join the Majority Opinion in full. I write to address the expressions of Justice Dougherty in his Concurring Opinion in which he offers, should the General Assembly revisit the issue, that our decision in Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 617 Pa. 527, 53 A.3d 738 (2012), “effectively recognized” that this Court “may have erroneously” placed upon the Commonwealth the burden to disprove a self-defense claim. See Concurring Opinion (Dougherty, J.) at 343-44, 142 A.3d at 825 (citing Mouzon). I would caution the General
Justice DOUGHERTY, concurring.
I join the Majority Opinion, writing separately only to note, irrespective of the presumption arising from the statutory “castle doctrine,” under current law, the Commonwealth has the burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It would appear that this burden arising from this Court‘s decisional law, see infra, already effectively establishes a presumption the defendant has a reasonable belief in the need to use self-protective force in all self-defense cases.
The jury here was explicitly informed of the Commonwealth‘s burden in the trial court‘s final charge:
The defendant has raised the issue of whether he acted in self[-]defense when he stabbed Bryant Bell. Self[-]defense is called justification in the law of Pennsylvania. If the defendant[‘]s actions were justified you can not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of any of these offenses. The issue having been raised, it is the Commonwealth‘s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in justifiable self[-]defense.
N.T. 11/16/2012 at 113-14. However, the Commonwealth does not suggest this standard charge rendered a castle doctrine charge superfluous, or its absence harmless.
Notably, the amendment to the statute encompassing the castle doctrine was adopted in 2011, the year before this Court‘s decision in Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 617 Pa. 527, 53 A.3d 738 (2012). Mouzon explained that, at common law, the defendant had the burden to prove affirmative defenses such as self-defense, a construct carried over into the Crimes Code. See
The Mouzon Court further explained the prediction of a change in the burden of proof commanded by federal law proved erroneous with respect to self-defense. See id. at 742-43 (“Subsequent decisions from the High Court, however, reveal that the federal constitutional predictions respecting affirmative defenses in Pennsylvania did not materialize, including the affirmative defense of self-defense.“) (discussing Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977), and Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228, 107 S.Ct. 1098, 94 L.Ed.2d 267 (1987)). “The overall principle that emerges from the High Court‘s decisional law is that federal due process permits States to place a burden on the defendant to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, so long as the defendant is not thereby required to negate an element of the offense.” 53 A.3d at 743.