Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 7/27/24 Zak Goldstein 7/27/24

PA Superior Court: Evidence of Subsequent Shooting Too Prejudicial to Admit to Prove Consciousness of Guilt in Murder Case

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Carter, holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence that the defendant shot someone else who was potentially involved in the murder with which he was charged. The Superior Court found that the trial court properly excluded the evidence because although it was relevant, its admission would have been too unfairly prejudicial to the defendant. At the same time, the Superior Court held that the trial court erred in precluding evidence that the defendant left Pennsylvania and went to Atlanta shortly after the murder.

The Facts of Carter

In 2021, the defendant and three others were drinking and hanging out in New Castle, PA. They spent some time at one of their girlfriend’s houses, and then they decided to drive to Pittsburgh. There had been an argument between the defendant and the victim prior to the trip to Pittsburgh, but it seemed like they had resolved the issue. Nonetheless, on the way to Pittsburgh, the defendant shot the victim three times, killing him. The group then fled the scene, and a different girlfriend picked them up. The defendant told her that he did the shooting. The next day, the defendant and one of the others flew from Philadelphia to Atlanta, Georgia. While in Atlanta, the defendant shot that man in the head while they were in an Uber, but the man survived that shooting.

The 404(b) “Other Bad Acts” Motion

The Commonwealth moved to introduce evidence of the Georgia shooting under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b), arguing it demonstrated the defendant’s consciousness of guilt, flight, and a common scheme or plan.

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) sometimes permits the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts for purposes other than to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. Rule 404(b) provides:

(b)  Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
   (1)  Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
   (2)  Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. In a criminal case this evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.
   (3)  Notice in a Criminal Case. In a criminal case the prosecutor must provide reasonable written notice in advance of trial so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the specific nature, permitted use, and reasoning for the use of any such evidence the prosecutor intends to introduce at trial.

In this case, the Commonwealth argued the evidence should be admitted to show:

Consciousness of Guilt: Evidence of the defendant’s flight to Georgia could arguably be admitted to demonstrate his consciousness of guilt. Pennsylvania courts generally recognize that flight from the area can indicate a defendant's consciousness of guilt.

Res Gestae: Evidence of the Georgia shooting could be considered part of the res gestae (or complete story). That exception allows the admission of other acts that are part of the natural development of the facts and help to tell the complete story of the case.

Common Scheme, Plan, or Design: The similarities between the shootings of the decedent and the other man in Atlanta, both involving victims shot in the head in moving vehicles, could be found to establish a common scheme or plan.

Notably, Rule 404(b) only allows the admission of prior bad acts evidence “if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.” This part was key to the defendant’s success in this appeal.

Although the evidence of the Georgia shooting was relevant under these exceptions, it was ultimately excluded by the trial court under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 403 due to the risk of unfair prejudice outweighing its probative value. The Superior Court affirmed this exclusion for the Georgia shooting but allowed the evidence of flight to come in under Rule 404(b)(2).

The trial court held a hearing on the Commonwealth’s pre-trial motion in liming and excluded this evidence. The Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Superior Court Appeal

The Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Superior Court ruled that the trial court should have allowed the Commonwealth to introduce evidence that the defendant fled to Georgia as this flight would show consciousness of guilt, but it agreed that the evidence of the subsequent shooting was too unfairly prejudicial to admit in his Pennsylvania murder trial.

The Superior Court recognized that the shooting evidence was relevant. It agreed with the Commonwealth that the evidence of Carter shooting the other man who had been present for the first murder in Atlanta was relevant for proving consciousness of guilt and as part of the res gestae (or showing the complete story). The Court also found the similarities between the two shootings (both occurring in moving vehicles and targeting victims seated in the front passenger seats) justified admitting the evidence to establish a common scheme or plan.

At the same time, the Court recognized that relevance is not the only issue in terms of whether evidence of some other crime is admissible under Pa.R.Crim.P. 404(b). Instead, a court must also evaluate whether the unfair prejudice of admitting the other bad act outweighs the relevance that the evidence relating to the other crime may have. Here, the allegation that the defendant shot someone else in Atlanta was about as prejudicial as it could get, and it did not add a lot to the Commonwealth’s case in terms of proving that he committed the murder in Pennsylvania. Thus, despite the potential relevance of the Georgia shooting, the Superior Court upheld the trial court's decision to exclude it due to its potential to unfairly prejudice the jury against the defendant. The Court noted the risk of the jury convicting Carter on an improper basis rather than impartially weighing the evidence related to the decedent’s murder.

Accordingly, when the Commonwealth files a motion to admit evidence of some other crime or bad act, it is important for the defense attorney to argue not just that the evidence is not relevant, but also that even if it is relevant, the unfair prejudice of telling the jury the defendant committed another serious crime outweighs any relevance the other bad act may have.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers — Goldstein Mehta LLC 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 and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. 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.

Zak Goldstein 7/22/24 Zak Goldstein 7/22/24

PA Supreme Court: Defendant May Appeal Adverse Ruling on Motion in Limine Even Where Defendant Preemptively Introduces Damaging Evidence

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Raheem Stevenson, holding that a defendant may still appeal a trial court’s pre-trial ruling on the admissibility of a prior conviction even if the defendant preemptively introduces the harmful evidence during direct examination.

The Facts of Stevenson

The defendant and his co-defendant were arrested for an alleged armed robbery that took place in 2017. During trial, the Commonwealth moved in limine to introduce evidence that the defendant had a prior 2005 conviction for burglary. The defense objected, but the trial court found that the evidence was properly admissible.

The trial court issued its ruling prior to trial as part of a hearing on a motion in limine. A motion in limine allows the parties to get a ruling from the trial judge on the admissibility of certain evidence prior to the trial or prior to the testimony itself so that neither party has to be surprised by the eventual ruling when the issue comes up during the trial. This lets the parties know what evidence they may mention during opening statements and potentially avoid triggering a mistrial by introducing evidence that should not come in.

In order to mitigate against the potential impact of this prior conviction, the defense attorney asked the defendant about it when he testified on direct examination. When damaging evidence is going to come in no matter what, it is often strategic for the affected party to introduce it themselves and avoid looking like they were attempting to hide it. It may also give the party the opportunity to explain the circumstances or provide more detail where helpful. Here, the trial attorney objected to the admission of the evidence in advance. But when the trial court ruled that it would be admissible, the attorney decided it would be strategic to have his client testify about it rather than waiting for the Commonwealth to bring it up in cross-examination.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The jury convicted the defendant, and the defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On appeal, the defendant raised the issue of whether the trial court improperly allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of the prior burglary conviction. The Superior Court affirmed, but it did so because it found that the defense had waived the issue for appeal by introducing the evidence on direct examination. The Superior Court concluded that the defendant could not complain about evidence that he had introduced himself. The Superior Court relied primarily on the United States Supreme Court case of Ohler v. United States. There, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who introduces evidence preemptively cannot later claim it was admitted in error. That is still the rule in federal court.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's decision, concluding that the rule in Ohler should not apply under Pennsylvania law. Under Pennsylvania law, the defendant may still raise the issue on appeal even if the defendant preemptively introduced the bad evidence where there was clearly a hearing on a motion in limine, the prosecution clearly made a request, the defendant clearly objected, and the trial court made an unequivocal ruling in favor of the prosecution prior to trial. Where the trial court’s ruling is unambiguous and the defense has definitely objected to the prosecution’s request, the defense may preemptively introduce the harmful evidence without waiving the issue for appeal.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court emphasized that under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 103, a defendant preserves the right to appeal a ruling on evidence admissibility by making a motion in limine. The rule does not require the defendant to renew the objection during the trial once the court has made a definitive ruling.

The Court recognized that defense attorneys sometimes need to preemptively disclose potentially damaging evidence to mitigate its impact. This strategy is a legitimate trial tactic. Forcing defendants to forgo this tactic to preserve their right to appeal would be unfair and contrary to the principles of a fair trial.

The Court noted that while federal courts take a different approach under the Ohler case, many state Supreme Courts have rejected Ohler and adopted the reasoning of the dissent in that case. The dissent in Ohler argued that a defendant should not lose the right to appeal a ruling simply because they chose to introduce the evidence themselves after an adverse in limine ruling. The Court noted that Pennsylvania civil cases have upheld the right to appeal adverse rulings after preemptive disclosure. Thus, in federal court, a defendant must choose between trying to disarm the damaging evidence following an adverse ruling and preserving the issue for appeal, but in Pennsylvania state court, the defendant may preemptively introduce the evidence so long as the objection was clearly made in advance.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein — Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

Zak Goldstein 6/8/24 Zak Goldstein 6/8/24

PA Supreme Court: PCRA Court Should Hold Hearing to See if Appointing New Counsel Warranted When Defendant Raises Claims of PCRA Counsel’s Ineffectiveness on Appeal

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Greer, holding that the lower courts erred in requiring an attorney to continue representing the defendant/PCRA petitioner on appeal without first holding a hearing to determine whether the petitioner should have received a new attorney or represented himself for the appeal. In Greer, the defendant submitted pro se filings while the denial of his PCRA petition was on appeal alleging that PCRA counsel, who was still representing him for the appeal, had provided the ineffective assistance of counsel in the PCRA proceedings by failing to raise meritorious claims. The Supreme Court held that before requiring counsel to file a merits brief on the issues he did raise, the lower courts should have held a hearing to determine whether the appointment of new counsel was necessary or alternatively, whether the defendant should be required or allowed to represent himself.

The Facts of Greer

A jury convicted Greer of first-degree murder and carrying a firearm without a license. He appealed to the Superior Court, and the Superior Court affirmed on direct appeal. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied a petition for allowance of appeal.

Following the conclusion of his direct appeals, Greer filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. The court appointed counsel for him, and his court-appointed counsel eventually filed an amended PCRA petition. The PCRA court denied the petition, and counsel filed an appeal on Greer’s behalf.

While the appeal was pending, Greer submitted a request for remand to raise claims that his PCRA counsel provided the ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to raise certain meritorious claims. The Superior Court remanded the case to the PCRA court to address these new claims, but the Commonwealth filed for reconsideration, arguing that the Superior Court should first address the claims which had already been developed by PCRA counsel. The Superior Court then directed counsel to file a merits brief on those issues. The defendant appealed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the appeal to decide whether the PCRA court should hold a hearing on who should represent the defendant for appeal or whether the Superior Court properly decided that the claims which had already been developed should be resolved first.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the PCRA court for a hearing on whether the defendant should receive new counsel, represent himself, or continue to be represented by PCRA counsel. The Court ruled that when an appellate court identifies potential ineffectiveness claims against current PCRA counsel, the proper procedure is to remand the case to the PCRA court to determine whether they have potential merit and who should represent the defendant. This remand should include an on-the-record colloquy with the petitioner about their right to counsel, the prohibition of hybrid representation (where the petitioner would partially represent themselves while also having counsel), and how they wish to proceed.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Superior Court should have remanded the case for a hearing to clarify Greer’s representation status before directing his PCRA counsel to file a merits brief on any of the issues. By forcing PCRA counsel to file a merits brief on the developed issues, the Superior Court inadvertently allowed hybrid representation, which is prohibited and undermines the appellate process. Therefore, the Court remanded for the PCRA court to determine who should represent the petitioner or alternatively, whether he should be allowed to proceed pro se.

Ultimately, this case resolves a complicated procedural issue that will not arise in every case, but it does show that the appellate courts have become much better about providing protections to ensure that PCRA petitioners receive the effective assistance of counsel. Previously, there was no meaningful way for a petitioner to challenge the ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel in state court. These claims would have to be raised in federal court by filing a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now, however, a PCRA petitioner may retain new counsel or ask for new court appointed counsel and raise those issues on appeal of the denial of a PCRA petition if they can identify legitimate issues of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Zak Goldstein 5/9/24 Zak Goldstein 5/9/24

PA Superior Court Finds Yet Another Lawyer Ineffective for Failing to Present Character Evidence at Trial

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Alceus, finding trial counsel ineffective and granting the defendant a new trial because trial counsel failed to call character witnesses to testify to the defendant’s excellent reputation in the community for non-violence. The law is clear in Pennsylvania: trial attorneys must investigate and call character witnesses to testify where such witnesses are available unless the attorney has a legitimate, genuinely strategic reason for deciding not to do so. Particularly in he-said/she-said assault and rape cases, the appellate courts are very likely to find counsel who fails to call character witnesses ineffective and reverse criminal convictions.

The Facts of Alceus

The defendant in this case was convicted of aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of child. The complainant, his wife, was pregnant at the time of the incident. She claimed that she tried to leave him. During that process, she was staying at her mother’s apartment with her five children when the defendant broke into the apartment, verbally and physically assaulted her in front of the children, and inflicted severe injuries. She went to the hospital after he left.

She received medical treatment at the hospital, and the hospital called the police. The police interviewed one of the older children who did not disclose seeing any violence. Nonetheless, the police arrested the defendant, and the Commonwealth charged him with aggravated assault and related charges. The complainant testified at trial, and the Commonwealth introduced the testimony of police and medical witnesses as well as medical records which corroborated her claims.

The jury convicted the defendant of multiple counts, and the trial court sentenced him to seven to fourteen years of incarceration followed by six years of probation. Notably, the Commonwealth presented no other eyewitnesses to the alleged assault. The defendant testified and denied having committed it. He claimed that he had been at the casino with his friend and had not seen the complainant that evening. He did not know who had injured her. None of the children testified, so although the complainant in fact had injuries, this was a he-said/she-said case in which the complainant said the defendant assaulted her and the defendant said he did not assault her. The defense attorney did not call character witnesses to testify to his client’s reputation for non-violence even though the defendant had no violent convictions.

The PCRA Petition

The defendant appealed his conviction to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the Superior Court denied the appeal. He then filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition in the trial court. In the petition, he alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer failed to speak with and call witnesses to testify who would have testified that he had an excellent reputation in the community for being a peaceful, non-violent person. He argued that this evidence would have raised a reasonable doubt given the lack of any evidence other than the testimony of the complainant that he was in fact the one who committed the assault, assuming someone committed an assault.

The PCRA court held an evidentiary hearing. Trial counsel testified that he did not investigate whether his client could have presented character witnesses because he thought character testimony would confuse the jury. He wanted the jury to instead focus on the lack of investigation by the police and the fact that one of the children had told the police that nothing happened when interviewed. Obviously, calling the character witnesses to testify would not have prevented counsel from doing any of this. The potential witnesses also testified at the hearing that the defendant had an excellent reputation for non-violence and that they would have been willing to testify at trial but the lawyer did not ask them to. The defendant also testified that he asked his lawyer to call the witnesses. He was surprised when the lawyer failed to do so.

The PCRA court denied the petition. It found that trial counsel’s decision not to present character witnesses was somehow strategic and that the proposed character witnesses were not credible because their testimony was not consistent with the evidence presented at trial. The defendant appealed.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The Superior Court reversed. It cited a long line of case law dating back more than a century to show that character witness is extremely important. Character evidence alone may be the basis for a reasonable doubt, and a defendant who presents character evidence is entitled to jury instruction informing the jury that character evidence may provide reasonable doubt even if the other evidence is believed and compelling. Trial counsel’s claimed strategy made no sense; if his goal was to show that the complainant was lying, then presenting character witnesses on the defendant’s behalf would have only strengthened that claim rather than confusing the jury. And the PCRA court failed to provide any explanation for why it believed the character witnesses were not credible. The fact that the Commonwealth presented evidence at trial had absolutely no bearing on whether the witnesses were credible as to the defendant’s reputation. Of course, the Commonwealth always presents evidence at trial. The evidence may not be true or compelling, but if the Commonwealth had no evidence, there would be no trial. The fact that the Commonwealth has evidence makes presenting character witnesses even more important.

This case illustrates the requirement that defense attorneys must present character evidence at trial for clients who have no criminal record or criminal records which are not relevant to the charges at issue in the case unless they have a very good reason for not doing so. Such reasons could include the possibility that the witnesses could be impeached with a relevant criminal record. For example, a defendant charged with a violent crime who offers character evidence of a reputation for non-violence could see the witnesses impeached with evidence of his prior violent convictions. But non-violent convictions would not be relevant. Further, trial counsel would not be ineffective for failing to call witnesses if the witnesses do not exist and no one is willing to testify on the defendant’s behalf or if the Commonwealth may be able to present credible rebuttal witnesses who would testify that the defendant actually has a bad reputation. Whether the Commonwealth may call police officers to do so, however, is debatable and should be challenged.

Each case is different, but in most cases where the defendant has no criminal history or no history of crimes involving the relevant character trait, the defense attorney should call character witnesses and is likely providing the ineffective assistance of counsel if they fail to do so. It is also clear that under Pennsylvania law, character witnesses may be only be impeached with evidence of criminal convictions for the relevant trait; they may not be impeached with arrests that did not end in convictions or uncharged bad conduct. Excuses such as local jurors do not understand or value character evidence, character evidence is confusing, or family and friends are not valuable character witnesses will not protect an attorney from ineffective assistance claims.

In this case, the Superior Court found the defendant suffered prejudice from trial counsel’s failure to call character witnesses. This was a he-said/she-said case where no one else testified that the defendant committed the crimes charged. Had the witnesses testified on his behalf, the verdict might have been different. Accordingly, the Superior Court granted him a new trial.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Read the opinion