Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2007, Richard Roland Laird was sentenced to death following his retrial for first-degree murder, having originally been convicted and sentenced to death in 1988 for the same offense. Laird's most recent appeal challenges the denial of his latest Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition as untimely. He requested the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to create an equitable exception to the PCRA’s time-bar, citing the decision in Commonwealth v. Bradley, and also argued that Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) precluded the dismissal of his petition as untimely.The Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County denied Laird’s PCRA petition, finding it untimely and not meeting any statutory exceptions. The court also rejected Laird’s claims on the merits, including ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims and an illegal sentencing claim. Laird’s appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court followed.The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Bradley did not establish an equitable exception to the PCRA’s time-bar and that its rationale could not be extended to create one. The court emphasized that the PCRA’s time limitations are jurisdictional and not subject to equitable principles. Additionally, the court held that the ICCPR could not be invoked to circumvent the PCRA’s timeliness requirements, reaffirming that exceptions to the PCRA’s time-bar are strictly limited to those set forth in the statute.Thus, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the order denying Laird’s PCRA petition as untimely, concluding that neither Bradley nor the ICCPR provided a basis to bypass the PCRA’s jurisdictional time-bar. View "Commonwealth v. Laird" on Justia Law

A police detective was charged with multiple criminal offenses, including unsworn falsification to authorities, tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, tampering with public records or information, and obstructing administration of law or other governmental function. The charges stemmed from allegations that the detective assisted his cousin in stalking a woman and attempted to cover up his misconduct by using police databases to obtain her information and then lying about it during an internal affairs investigation.The Municipal Court of Philadelphia dismissed the charges against the detective for lack of evidence. The Commonwealth refiled the charges, but the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County also dismissed them, concluding that the Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the evidence was insufficient to support the charges.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and reversed the Superior Court's decision. The Court held that the Commonwealth had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for each of the charges. The Court found that the detective's actions, including his false statements during the internal affairs investigation and the suspicious addition of a second folder to the homicide file, supported the charges. The Court emphasized that at the preliminary hearing stage, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in its favor. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Commonwealth v. Williams" on Justia Law

William Roberts was convicted of statutory sexual assault, sexual assault, corruption of the morals of a minor, and indecent assault in 2005. He was sentenced to one and a half to three years in prison and required to register as a sexual offender for life under Megan’s Law III. Roberts complied with his registration obligations until 2019 but failed to report in 2020. The Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) discovered that Roberts no longer lived at his registered address and had not updated his information, leading to his arrest and charges for failing to comply with registration requirements.The Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County convicted Roberts of two counts of failure to comply with registration requirements and sentenced him to five to ten years in prison. Roberts appealed, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to prove he knew he was required to register. The Superior Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the crime occurred when Roberts knowingly failed to register or verify his residence, regardless of whether he knew he was required to do so.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case to determine if the Commonwealth must prove that a sexual offender knew of their registration obligations to convict them of failure to comply. The Court held that the Commonwealth must prove the offender knew of their SORNA obligations. However, the Court found sufficient evidence that Roberts knew of his lifetime registration requirement, as he had signed forms acknowledging this multiple times. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of sentence. View "Commonwealth v. Roberts" on Justia Law

On May 8, 2020, Sergeant Aaron Scott and Officer Samuel Greco of the Frazer Township Police Department responded to a rollover vehicle accident. They found Jarren Crosby and a female companion near the overturned vehicle. Crosby admitted to driving, and the officers detected signs of marijuana use. Crosby was unsteady and had slurred speech. When the officers detained him for a DUI investigation, Crosby became agitated and resisted arrest. Officer Greco attempted to handcuff Crosby, who resisted by pulling away and screaming. Greco then tackled Crosby and used a taser to subdue him. Crosby was charged with multiple offenses, including DUI and resisting arrest.The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County convicted Crosby of DUI, resisting arrest, and careless driving, while acquitting him of other charges. Crosby was sentenced to four days in the DUI Alternative to Jail Program and fifteen months’ probation. Crosby’s post-sentence motions were denied, and he appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for his resisting arrest conviction.The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support Crosby’s conviction for resisting arrest. The court noted that Crosby’s resistance required substantial force to overcome, as Officer Greco had to tackle him and use a taser.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court’s decision. The court clarified that the offense of resisting arrest under the second variant of the statute involves the defendant employing means that justify or require substantial force to overcome the resistance. The court held that Officer Greco’s tackle of Crosby constituted substantial force, and thus, the evidence was sufficient to support Crosby’s conviction for resisting arrest. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed, and the case was remanded to correct a scrivener’s error in the sentencing order. View "Commonwealth v. Crosby" on Justia Law

Derek Murchison was convicted of first-degree murder for the strangulation of Linda Willis on October 5, 2001, and sentenced to life in prison without parole. Murchison later sought post-conviction DNA testing of items found at the crime scene, arguing that the new DNA results constituted after-discovered evidence warranting a new trial.The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas dismissed Murchison's petition, and the Superior Court affirmed. The PCRA court found that the new DNA evidence was cumulative and would not likely compel a different verdict. The court noted that the jury had already been informed that Murchison's DNA was not found at the crime scene and still convicted him based on witness testimony and his confessions.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case to determine if the lower courts applied the correct legal standard for after-discovered evidence claims based on post-conviction DNA testing. The court held that the same standard applies to all after-discovered evidence claims, including DNA evidence. The court concluded that the new DNA evidence did not establish Murchison's actual innocence and was not likely to result in a different verdict. The court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, emphasizing that the conviction was based on substantial witness testimony and Murchison's confessions, which were not undermined by the new DNA evidence. View "Commonwealth v. Murchison" on Justia Law

On November 18, 2020, Officer Matthew Ibbotson and his partner stopped a silver Honda with heavily tinted windows in a high-crime area of Philadelphia for traffic violations. The driver, Omar Saunders, made suspicious movements, and Officer Ibbotson saw the handle of a gun under the driver’s seat. Saunders admitted he did not have a permit for the gun, which was later found to be stolen. Saunders was arrested, and the gun was seized.The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denied Saunders’s motion to suppress the gun, ruling that the seizure was justified under the plain view doctrine and the automobile exception, which requires both probable cause and exigent circumstances. Saunders was convicted of firearms offenses and sentenced to three and a half to seven years in prison. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case to determine the legality of the warrantless seizure. The court held that the seizure was constitutional under the plain view doctrine. It found that the police had a lawful vantage point, the incriminating nature of the gun was immediately apparent, and the police had a lawful right of access to the gun. The court emphasized that the unexpected development of probable cause during a lawful traffic stop justified the seizure without a warrant. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court’s order upholding the denial of suppression of the firearm. View "Commonwealth v. Saunders" on Justia Law

Michael Jones was convicted of attempted murder and related charges after an incident where he and his codefendants, Syheed Wilson and Keirsten Carroll, were involved in a shooting of a cab driver, Alex Destin. Jones directed the cab driver and then shot him, while Wilson also shot the driver. The three were identified through surveillance footage and arrested. Wilson gave a statement to the police implicating Jones as the shooter.At trial, Jones objected to the admission of Wilson’s statement, arguing it violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause as established in Bruton v. United States. The trial court overruled the objection, and the jury was instructed to consider each defendant’s statement only against the one who made it. Jones was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to twenty to forty years in prison. The Superior Court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the redacted statement, which referred to Jones as “my friend,” did not violate the Confrontation Clause because it did not explicitly name him and required linkage with other evidence to be incriminating.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case, focusing on whether the admission of Wilson’s redacted statement violated Bruton. The court noted that the statement, though redacted to refer to Jones as “my friend,” still directly incriminated him by describing him in a way that the jury could easily identify him, especially since the jury was shown surveillance footage and still images identifying Jones. The court concluded that the statement violated Bruton’s prohibition against admitting a non-testifying codefendant’s confession that directly implicates the defendant.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated the Superior Court’s order and remanded the case for the Superior Court to determine whether the Bruton violation amounted to harmless error. View "Commonwealth v. Jones" on Justia Law

The case involves a petition challenging the public release of a grand jury report by the 30th County Investigating Grand Jury. The petitioner argued that the report did not meet the statutory definition of an "investigatory grand jury report" under the Investigatory Grand Jury Act (IGJA) and that the supervising judge erred in ordering its release. The petitioner also contended that the report's criticism of named, unindicted individuals violated their due process rights and the fundamental right to reputation under the Pennsylvania Constitution.The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas initially accepted the report and ordered its public release. The supervising judge provided notice and an opportunity to respond to some, but not all, named, unindicted individuals criticized in the report. The petitioner, along with others, sought to have the report permanently sealed or redacted. The supervising judge made some redactions but ultimately ordered the report to be unsealed.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and concluded that the report did not satisfy the IGJA's definition of an "investigatory grand jury report" because it neither related to organized crime or public corruption nor proposed recommendations for legislative, executive, or administrative action in the public interest. The court found that the report focused on punishing specific individuals and providing answers to the deceased-accused's family, rather than addressing broader public concerns.The court also determined that due process requires notice and an opportunity to respond for all named, unindicted individuals criticized in a grand jury report. The supervising judge's failure to provide such notice to all criticized individuals was deemed an error. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the supervising judge's order and remanded the case with instructions to permanently seal the report. View "In Re: The Thirtieth County Investigating Grand Jury" on Justia Law

Lisa Smith, the appellant, lived with her boyfriend, Keiff King, and her four-year-old son, Tahjir, in a home in Abington Township, Pennsylvania. On January 22, 2018, after Tahjir spilled cereal, he was subjected to severe punishment by Smith and King, including being forced to hold difficult positions and being beaten. Tahjir was also placed in a hot shower, resulting in severe burns. Later, when Tahjir showed signs of severe distress, Smith and King delayed seeking medical help. Eventually, Smith called 911, but Tahjir was pronounced dead at the hospital. An autopsy revealed that Tahjir died from "crush syndrome" due to severe beatings and burns.Smith and King were charged with first-degree murder, endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal conspiracy. Smith's motion to suppress her statements to the police was partially granted, excluding statements made before receiving Miranda warnings. At trial, King's redacted statement, which replaced Smith's name with feminine pronouns, was admitted. The trial court instructed the jury to consider King's statement only against him. Both Smith and King were convicted, and Smith was sentenced to life in prison without parole, plus additional years.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether Smith's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by admitting King's redacted statement. The court held that there was no violation, as the redacted statement did not directly or powerfully implicate Smith in the crime. The court emphasized that the statement did not identify Smith as a participant in the abuse and that the jury was properly instructed to consider the statement only against King. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court's decision, upholding Smith's conviction and sentence. View "Commonwealth v. Smith" on Justia Law

The case involves Jason Andrew Lear, who faced criminal charges for theft and assault in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The charges were filed in May, June, and July 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas suspended criminal trials and implemented strict protocols, delaying Lear's trial. His trial was eventually scheduled for November 1, 2021, well beyond the 365-day limit set by Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600.The Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas denied Lear's motion to dismiss based on Rule 600, reasoning that the delay was due to the judicial emergency caused by the pandemic. Lear was convicted and sentenced to five to twelve years in prison. He appealed to the Superior Court, which vacated his sentence and remanded the case for a hearing to determine if the Commonwealth had acted with due diligence during the delay.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether Rule 600 requires the Commonwealth to demonstrate due diligence during a judicial emergency. The Court held that the delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and related court closures do not fall under the "judicial delay" category requiring a due diligence assessment. Instead, these delays are considered "other periods of delay" under Rule 600(C)(1) and are excludable from the 365-day computation without assessing the Commonwealth's diligence. The Court reversed the Superior Court's decision, ruling that no Rule 600 violation occurred and no hearing was necessary. View "Commonwealth v. Lear" on Justia Law