Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In 2003, Robert Arnett was convicted in Pennsylvania for engaging in sexual activity with a fourteen-year-old, resulting in his plea of guilty to several offenses, including aggravated indecent assault and statutory sexual assault. He received a sentence of five to ten years’ incarceration. At the time, Pennsylvania’s sexual offender law—known as Megan’s Law—required Arnett to register as a sexual offender for life. After Arnett’s release, the law was replaced by successive statutes, culminating in the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act II (SORNA II), which continued to require his lifetime registration. Arnett, more than fifteen years after his sentence became final, filed a pro se petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), later amended by counsel, challenging SORNA II’s constitutionality.The York County Court of Common Pleas considered Arnett’s PCRA petition, holding a hearing without witness testimony. The court found SORNA II unconstitutional as applied to Arnett, granted his petition, and enjoined enforcement of the registration requirements. The Commonwealth appealed. The Superior Court determined that constitutional challenges to SORNA fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and transferred the appeal accordingly.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether the PCRA is a proper mechanism for challenging the constitutionality of a non-punitive sexual offender registration statute like SORNA II. The court held that the PCRA, by its plain terms, is limited to challenges related to a conviction or sentence and does not provide a vehicle for relief from non-punitive collateral consequences such as SORNA II’s registration requirements. The court vacated the lower court’s order granting relief, dismissed Arnett’s petition under the PCRA, and declined to address whether other mechanisms—such as habeas corpus—may be used to challenge SORNA II, reserving that question for future cases. View "Commonwealth v. Arnett" on Justia Law

In this case, a man was convicted by a jury of killing a woman, her unborn child, and her four-year-old daughter, as well as related offenses, and was sentenced to death for the child’s murder. The crimes occurred in an apartment where the man was present and had a relationship with the victims. The woman was engaged in drug dealing, and the man assisted her. On the afternoon of the murders, the man was alone with the victims shortly before the apartment was set on fire. The man was seen fleeing in the woman’s car, acted evasively with both family and police, changed his story multiple times, and was found with injuries and items linking him to the crime scene. At trial, DNA evidence and a jailhouse informant’s testimony were presented, among other circumstantial evidence.After his conviction and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the man filed a timely petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas. He alleged, among other things, that the prosecution withheld impeachment evidence about key witnesses, failed to correct false testimony, and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to properly investigate and challenge the witnesses and DNA evidence, as well as for not presenting character evidence and additional mitigating evidence during sentencing. The PCRA court denied all relief, finding either no merit, no prejudice, or waiver as to the claims.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the PCRA court’s denial. The Court agreed that, even if some deficiencies or omissions occurred, the circumstantial evidence against the man was overwhelming, and there was no reasonable probability that the result would have been different. The Court also found no error in the handling of mitigation evidence or in the recusal context. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. View "Commonwealth v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Two men entered a Pittsburgh home in 2014 during a robbery, confronting the residents, Leonard Butler and Tina Chapple. Both victims were forced into the basement at gunpoint. While one perpetrator, later identified as Derek Lee, pistol-whipped Butler and took his watch, Butler struggled with the other participant, Paul Durham, resulting in Butler’s death by gunfire. The investigation linked Lee to the scene via a rental vehicle and a victim’s identification. Lee was charged and a jury found him guilty of second-degree murder, robbery causing serious bodily injury, and conspiracy, but not first-degree murder. By law, second-degree murder in Pennsylvania—felony murder—carries a mandatory sentence of life without parole, which was imposed.Lee did not file a direct appeal but, after post-conviction proceedings restored his rights, he moved to modify his sentence, arguing that mandatory life without parole for felony murder was unconstitutional under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. The Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas denied relief, as did the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which found itself bound by prior case law holding that such a sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment, particularly for adults, and that the state constitution provided no broader protection than its federal counterpart.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether a mandatory life without parole sentence for all felony murder convictions, without individualized assessment of culpability, violates the Eighth Amendment or Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court held that, although the sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment as currently interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, Article I, Section 13 provides greater protection. The Court concluded that mandatory life without parole for all felony murder convictions, absent consideration of individual culpability, constitutes cruel punishment under the Pennsylvania Constitution. The order of the Superior Court was reversed, the sentence vacated, and the case remanded for resentencing, with a 120-day stay for legislative action. View "Commonwealth v. Lee" on Justia Law

Four men, including the defendant, traveled from Chicago to Erie, Pennsylvania, where they stayed in a hotel. During a failed drug transaction in the hotel parking lot, one of the men, Baizar, was shot at and dropped a package containing heroin. The defendant, Belgrave, returned fire before being seriously injured. Both men fled but were soon apprehended. Belgrave was charged with possession with intent to deliver, reckless endangerment, and firearms offenses.The Court of Common Pleas of Erie County presided over Belgrave’s trial. Before trial, Belgrave moved to preclude the prosecution from referencing Baizar’s statements, anticipating Baizar would invoke his Fifth Amendment right and refuse to testify. Despite this, and after Baizar’s intentions were unequivocally established outside the jury’s presence, the prosecution called Baizar as a witness. As expected, Baizar refused to answer questions before the jury. The trial court gave a limiting instruction, but the prosecutor referenced Baizar’s silence in closing arguments. The jury convicted Belgrave. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, reasoning that prior case law did not bar the prosecutor’s actions because Baizar did not explicitly invoke the Fifth Amendment before the jury.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case. It held that it is prejudicial error and prosecutorial misconduct for a prosecutor to call a witness before the jury whom the prosecutor knows will refuse to answer questions, regardless of whether the witness expressly invokes the Fifth Amendment in the jury’s presence. The Court clarified that the error does not depend on such an invocation and that the harm lies in the refusal to answer accusatory questions, which the jury may treat as an implied admission. The judgment was vacated, and the case remanded for a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Belgrave" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for the 1994 killing of Eileen Jones, whom he strangled in a park after borrowing his nephew’s car. Police discovered evidence at his home related to the crime, and he confessed to the killing, explaining that he feared Jones would accuse him of rape. The defendant had a prior voluntary manslaughter conviction from 1980. Following his conviction, he was sentenced to death. After initial post-conviction proceedings, the sentencing was vacated due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and the defendant was resentenced to death in 2012. At the resentencing, the Commonwealth introduced evidence that the defendant read books about murder and aspired to be a serial killer.After the resentencing, the defendant filed a Post Conviction Relief Act petition in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, challenging the effectiveness of his resentencing counsel. The petition argued that counsel failed to adequately object to the Commonwealth’s use of evidence about his reading habits and alleged desire to be a serial killer. The court held evidentiary hearings and dismissed the petition, finding that counsel’s actions were reasonable and that the defendant did not demonstrate prejudice.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether resentencing counsel was ineffective for not adequately objecting to the Commonwealth’s evidence and arguments characterizing the defendant as a serial killer. The Court concluded that the evidence about reading murder books and aspiring to be a serial killer was inadmissible during the penalty phase, as it was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. The Court found that counsel’s failure to object constituted ineffective assistance and that there was a reasonable probability at least one juror may have struck a different balance but for the error. The Court reversed the lower court’s order and remanded for a new penalty-phase hearing. View "Commonwealth v. Smith" on Justia Law

During a lawful traffic stop in Philadelphia, police officers observed a vehicle with a malfunctioning brake light. Upon contacting the driver, Devaghn Hawkins-Davenport, the officers requested that he lower his tinted windows, making the interior visible. One officer saw a firearm lying in plain view on the front passenger seat. The officer quickly seized the firearm for safety and asked Hawkins-Davenport whether he had a license to carry it; Hawkins-Davenport responded that he did not. He was then arrested and charged with offenses related to carrying firearms without a license.Hawkins-Davenport filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the firearm and statements made during the stop, arguing that the stop and subsequent search violated his constitutional rights. The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas held a suppression hearing and granted the motion, finding no evidence of danger to the officers beyond the presence of the firearm and noting Hawkins-Davenport’s cooperation during the stop. The suppression court concluded there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause justifying the seizure of the firearm or the statements.The Commonwealth appealed, and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the suppression order. The Superior Court determined that officer safety during traffic stops justified the precautionary removal of a firearm seen in plain view and accessible to the driver, regardless of licensure status or other indicia of danger. The court found this was a minimal intrusion necessary for officer safety and permitted under established precedent.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Superior Court’s order. The Court held that during a lawful traffic stop, an officer who observes a firearm in plain view and within reach of the driver may seize the weapon as a reasonable safety precaution before ascertaining licensure status. The disposition affirmed the reversal of the suppression order. View "Commonwealth v. Hawkins-Davenport" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted by a jury of third-degree murder in 2002 for the killing of a police officer. At trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses who implicated the defendant, including testimony from an individual who claimed to have observed the shooting and another who reported the defendant’s incriminating statements. The defense was precluded from introducing evidence suggesting that another individual, Tusweet Smith, may have been the perpetrator, including testimony about Smith’s alleged intent and confessions. Over the years, the defendant filed multiple post-conviction petitions, raising claims based on newly discovered evidence and recantations by key prosecution witnesses. These petitions were denied, primarily on timeliness grounds under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), which imposes a one-year filing limit unless specific exceptions are met.The Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County dismissed the defendant’s most recent PCRA petition, finding it untimely and holding that a third-party confession (specifically, Smith’s confession to another inmate, Dorsett) could not qualify as a newly discovered fact because it was deemed inadmissible hearsay. The Superior Court affirmed the dismissal regarding the third-party confession, relying on precedent that inadmissible hearsay cannot support the PCRA’s newly discovered facts exception. However, the Superior Court agreed that the defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on separate statements and affidavits but not on the Dorsett/Smith confession.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court’s order as to the Dorsett/Smith statement. The Court held that a PCRA petitioner may establish the newly discovered facts exception with evidence that would be admissible at a PCRA hearing, and that a third-party confession to another person can serve as a newly discovered fact under the PCRA if properly pleaded. The Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to allow the defendant to attempt to prove his allegations with admissible evidence. View "Commonwealth v. Brown" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was charged with raping three different women on three separate occasions in Philadelphia, spanning from 2011 to 2015. Each victim underwent a sexual assault examination, and DNA evidence was collected but did not initially match any known profiles. In December 2018, a DNA database search revealed that the same DNA profile was present in all three cases. This profile was subsequently identified as belonging to the defendant, who was then arrested and charged separately for each incident.The prosecution moved to consolidate the three cases for a joint jury trial, arguing that the assaults were sufficiently similar to be admissible under the common plan, scheme, or design exception to Pennsylvania’s rule against propensity evidence. The defendant objected, but the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granted the consolidation and allowed the introduction of rape kit reports prepared by nurse examiners who did not testify at trial. The defendant was convicted on multiple counts, and the court imposed an aggregate sentence. On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the convictions and the admission of the rape kit reports, finding the cases sufficiently similar for consolidation and the reports non-testimonial and admissible under hearsay exceptions.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania concluded that consolidation was improper under the current interpretation of the common plan, scheme, or design exception, holding that such consolidation is permissible only if the offenses are signature crimes or part of a common goal, neither of which applied here. Additionally, the court held that admitting the rape kit reports without the testimony of the nurse examiners violated the defendant’s right to confront witnesses under the Confrontation Clause. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for further proceedings. View "Commonwealth v. Walker" on Justia Law

In this case, a woman named Annemarie Fitzpatrick drowned in Muddy Creek, Pennsylvania, while riding an ATV with her husband, Joseph Fitzpatrick. Initial investigations suggested an accidental death, but subsequent evidence—including a note written by Annemarie expressing fear of her husband, an email detailing marital problems, and findings from a forensic pathologist—raised suspicions of foul play. Additional evidence included Fitzpatrick’s extramarital affair, internet searches related to life insurance and polygraph laws, and testimony from an accident reconstructionist challenging Fitzpatrick’s account of the incident.After a jury convicted Fitzpatrick of first-degree murder and he was sentenced to life imprisonment, the York County Court of Common Pleas granted his post-sentence motion for acquittal, finding the evidence insufficient to prove homicide beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court cited the equivocal expert testimony and the lack of definitive proof of an unlawful killing. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed the acquittal, reinstated Fitzpatrick’s conviction, and held that circumstantial evidence and expert testimony were sufficient for conviction. Later, during pre-trial proceedings for a retrial, the admissibility of expert testimony regarding the manner of death became a central issue. The trial court excluded an expert’s opinion on manner of death, finding it speculative and not held to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether expert testimony regarding manner of death must meet the same admissibility standards as other expert opinions. The Court held that all expert opinions, including those on manner of death, must be stated to a reasonable degree of certainty to be admissible. The Court rejected the lower standard of “more likely than not” adopted by the Superior Court, reversed its order, and remanded for further proceedings, reaffirming the longstanding requirement for certainty in expert testimony. View "Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick" on Justia Law

A woman was kidnapped and raped in her rural home after her husband left for work. The perpetrator bound, gagged, and blindfolded her, then drove her to another location where he assaulted her. After being released in a field, the victim contacted police, who collected DNA evidence but initially could not identify the assailant. Investigators suspected the crime was premeditated due to the remote location, timing, and other factors, and obtained a “reverse keyword search warrant” for Google records of searches related to the victim’s name and address. Google identified two searches for the victim’s address made just before the attack, both linked to the same IP address, which was traced to John Edward Kurtz. Surveillance and DNA from a discarded cigarette butt confirmed the match, and Kurtz confessed to this and other assaults.Kurtz moved to suppress the evidence from the Google search, arguing the search warrant lacked probable cause individualized to him and that his internet search records were protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas denied the motion, and a jury found Kurtz guilty on all charges. He was sentenced to a lengthy prison term. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed, holding that Kurtz lacked an expectation of privacy in his Google search records or IP address, reasoning that he voluntarily provided this information to a third party and had agreed to Google’s privacy policy allowing cooperation with law enforcement.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their unprotected internet search queries and IP addresses. The court held that the average user does not have such an expectation, as using a search engine like Google involves voluntarily providing information to a third party with clear notice that the information may be shared, including with law enforcement. The judgment below was affirmed. View "Commonwealth v. Kurtz" on Justia Law