PA Supreme Court Finds Trial Counsel Ineffective for Failing to Object to Improper Reasonable Doubt Instruction

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Montalvo, holding that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to improper jury instructions on the definition of reasonable doubt. This decision is significant because it shows how important jury instructions are in a trial. Judges are required to properly instruct jurors on the relevant legal principles, and therefore, if they misstate the law, it can have disastrous consequences for the defendant. Thankfully, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized this in Montalvo. As a general rule, the giving of improper jury instructions is one of the issues which is most likely to successfully lead to a new trial on appeal or in post-conviction litigation.

Commonwealth v. Montalvo

 The defendant’s brother and his wife moved to York County from Puerto Rico. The couple frequently fought, and eventually, the brother moved out of the couple’s apartment. A few weeks later, the wife was seen at a local bar with a friend. At some point during the evening, the wife and her friend left the bar and walked to the wife’s apartment. Later that evening, the wife’s neighbor was awakened by the sound of breaking glass. The neighbor heard the defendant’s brother yell “open the door” after which he heard additional noises coming from the apartment. The following day, the neighbor looked through the wife’s window and saw a man lying on the floor. After seeing this, he called the police. 

When the police arrived at the scene, they observed the one pane of a four-pane window in the door to the apartment was broken. Upon entering the apartment, the officers discovered the friend’s body in the kitchen and the wife’s body in the bedroom. The friend had defensive wounds on his hands and he had lipstick inserted in his mouth. The wife had a broken nose, stab wounds to her eyes, and her head was nearly severed from her body. During their investigation, the police were able to identify traces of human blood that did not belong to either victim. After analysis, the police were able to determine that the blood belonged to the defendant’s brother. The defendant’s brother was subsequently arrested and charged with the murders of his wife and her friend. He was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and was sentenced to death. 

Two months before the defendant’s brother was arrested, the police sought and obtained an arrest warrant for the defendant as a possible accomplice or participant in the murders. The defendant remained a fugitive for several years until he was arrested in Hudson, New Jersey living under an assumed name. The defendant was then extradited to York County to face trial. At his trial, most of the evidence that was presented at his brother’s trial was also presented. The only evidence presented by the Commonwealth to connect the defendant to the murders was the testimony of a grocery store owner. She testified that the defendant’s brother had used their phone to call his wife. An argument ensued after which the brother hung up the phone. The grocery store owner would testify that after he hung up the phone, he told the defendant that he wanted to kill his wife. In response to this, the defendant said “leave it to him” and that he would kill his wife himself. She also testified that after the murders, the defendant and his brother came to their house. She said she heard the brothers tell her husband in great detail how they killed the wife and her friend.

After the prosecution and the defense rested, the judge charged the jury. During her reading of the jury instructions, the trial court made two significant misstatements. First, while explaining reasonable doubt, she stated “so if the Commonwealth has not sustained its burden to that level, the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then your verdict must be guilty.” The defendant’s attorney did not object to this and would later testify during a PCRA hearing that “he did not recognize the mistake.” Then, a short time later, the judge stated “if you find that the defendant was not involved in this, you should find him guilty of all those charges.” This time, the defendant’s attorney corrected the trial court by saying “Not guilty, judge.” In response to this, the judge said “not guilty. Now that was a Freudian slip.”

After the trial, the defendant was convicted of first degree and second-degree murder. The jury came back with a recommendation of death and the trial court imposed the death sentence for him. The defendant then filed a timely appeal. His appeal was denied and then he filed a PCRA petition arguing that his attorney was ineffective in his representation of him. The defendant’s PCRA hearings lasted three days. At the conclusion of the hearing, the PCRA court granted the defendant a new trial based on trial counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to object to the trial court’s error in instructing the jury on the issue of guilt. The Commonwealth then filed a timely appeal. 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the PCRA court’s decision. In its brief, the Commonwealth did not dispute that the jury instruction was incorrect. However, it argued that it was “one isolated misstatement that occurred during the course of otherwise error-free instructions to the jury.” The Commonwealth further argued that basically everyone is familiar with the requirement that a prosecutor prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was not persuaded by the Commonwealth’s arguments. The Court stated that it is the trial court’s sole responsibility to instruct the jury on the law as it pertains to the case before them. Additionally, the Court took issue with the Commonwealth’s characterization of trial court’s performance delivering the jury instructions. The Court highlighted that shortly after this initial mistake, the trial court misstated the law again. To make matters worse, the trial court injected its opinion on the case by saying that it “was a Freudian slip” when she misstated the law. The Court found that the trial court had “conveyed to the jury her belief that [the defendant] was guilty.” This was unacceptable to the Court and held that the defendant had been prejudiced. Consequently, the defendant’s convictions are vacated and he will get a new trial. 

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help. 

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.