Title: Com. v. Harvey

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

345 Pa. Superior Ct. 237 (1985) 498 A.2d 378 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. John HARVEY, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted April 3, 1985. Filed August 9, 1985. Reargument Denied October 8, 1985. *238 Pamela P. Cohen, Philadelphia, for appellant. Robert B. Lawler, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Com., appellee. Before CAVANAUGH, OLSZEWSKI and HOFFMAN, JJ. CAVANAUGH, Judge: John Harvey appeals from the judgment of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas imposing concurrent *239 sentences of life imprisonment and from two and one half to five years on convictions for first degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime. These convictions arise from the strangulation death of Denise Madison on February 4, 1983. In a bench trial the appellant contended that the victim had been choking on an unknown object and that he had accidentally strangled her in an attempt to remove the obstruction from her throat. On appeal, Harvey presents two issues for our consideration: (1) whether he was prejudiced at trial by misconduct on the part of the prosecutor? and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction for first degree murder? For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we vacate the sentences imposed and remand for a new trial. The tendency in our courts has been to afford to the prosecutor a fair degree of latitude in trying criminal defendants. As it is often stated, not every intemperate, irrelevant, unwise or improper remark by a prosecuting attorney is grounds for a mistrial. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 505 Pa. 152, 477 A.2d 1309 (1984); Commonwealth v. Burton, 491 Pa. 13, 417 A.2d 611 (1980); Commonwealth v. Green, 321 Pa.Super. 246, 467 A.2d 1346 (1983). "Although a prosecutor's statement may be inappropriate, a new trial will not be granted unless it is inevitable that the prosecutor's remark prejudices the defendant to such a degree that it prevents the jury from weighing the evidence and rendering a true verdict." Maxwell, 505 Pa. at 166, 477 A.2d at 1316-17 (citing Commonwealth v. Upsher, 497 Pa. 621, 627, 444 A.2d 90, 92 (1982)). Where the defendant is tried before a judge sitting alone, the standard for proving harm from prosecutorial transgressions is perhaps even more stringent, for the law of this Commonwealth frequently presumes that the trial judge will disregard any inadmissible evidence or improper argument. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 491 Pa. 363, 421 A.2d 179 (1980); Commonwealth v. Glover, 266 Pa.Super. 531, 405 A.2d 945 (1979). *240 Nevertheless, "[t]here are times when evidence is so prejudicial that we cannot assume that the trier of fact will be able to put the evidence aside and arrive at an impartial adjudication." Commonwealth v. Conti, 236 Pa.Super. 488, 495, 345 A.2d 238, 242 (1975). As the court in Conti stated, "judges are subject to the same emotions and human frailties as affect all persons, lay jurors or not." Id., 236 Pa.Superior Ct. at 499, 345 A.2d at 244. This court in Conti reviewed the rationale underlying a rule of presumed judicial detachment. In conclusion we said: Conti, 236 Pa.Super. at 501, 345 A.2d at 245. Furthermore, it is the burden of the Commonwealth to establish that its misconduct did not affect the outcome of the trial. See Commonwealth v. Bricker, 506 Pa. 571, 589-591, 487 A.2d 346, 355 (1985). The supreme court has outlined the reviewing court's inquiry: Commonwealth v. Collins, 462 Pa. 495, 503, 341 A.2d 492, 495 (1975) (quoting Commonwealth v. Davis, 452 Pa. 171, 177, 305 A.2d 715, 719 (1973) (footnote omitted)). In the present case, our review of the record indicates that the misconduct of the prosecutor may have had serious consequences in unfairly prejudicing the judge and denying the appellant his right to a fair trial. Just as the supreme court found in Collins, Commonwealth v. Collins, 462 Pa. at 499, 341 A.2d at 493. Moreover, the misconduct of the prosecutor in this case was "so prejudicial" that we cannot assume that the trial judge *242 was unaffected. As distinguished by the court in Conti, the impact of many of the instances of prosecutorial misconduct here was of a highly emotional nature rather than being confined to matters of the intellect. Thus, on the particular facts of this case, it is not sufficient to rely merely on an unchallenged presumption of judicial detachment as argued by the Commonwealth. Our prosecuting attorneys are vested and bound by certain obligations inherent in their position. Commonwealth v. Tumpson, 242 Pa.Super. 1, 5, 363 A.2d 1129, 1131 (1976) (quoting Commonwealth v. Toth, 455 Pa. 154, 158-59, 314 A.2d 275, 278 (1974)). See also Commonwealth v. Collins, 462 Pa. 495, 341 A.2d 492 (1975); Commonwealth v. Revty, 448 Pa. 512, 295 A.2d 300 (1972). In accord with this view our courts have expressly adopted the ABA Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function. See Commonwealth v. Starks, 479 Pa. 51, 387 A.2d 829 (1978). Those Standards provide in part: ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecution Function, § 5.6 (1982) [hereinafter ABA Standards]. Id. § 5.8. Although this latter section relates specifically to argument to the jury, we feel that its admonitions to prosecutors apply also in non-jury cases, particularly where the misconduct reaches the level contemplated in Conti. Prosecutors are expressly directed "not [to] use arguments calculated to inflame the passions or prejudices of the jury." Commonwealth v. Bricker, 506 Pa. 571, 586, 487 A.2d 346, 353 (1985) (quoting ABA Standards § 5.8(c)). They are further admonished to "refrain from argument which would divert the jury from its duty to decide the case on the evidence, by injecting issues broader than the guilt or innocence of the accused under the controlling law. . . ." ABA Standards § 5.8(d). See Commonwealth v. Collins, 462 Pa. 495, 341 A.2d 492 (1975). In spite of these controlling standards of permissible trial conduct, the assistant *244 district attorney engaged in the following exchanges on cross-examination of the appellant: In his closing argument to the judge, the prosecutor continued: Unquestionably these comments exceeded the permissible bounds of argument as set forth in the ABA Standards and adopted by our courts. It is firmly settled that "[a] reference, either expressly or by reasonable implication, to prior criminal activity, which does not qualify as a recognized exception to the general rule excluding evidence of an accused's prior criminal convictions. . . is impermissible." Commonwealth v. Percell, 499 Pa. 589, 592, 454 A.2d 542, 544 (1982) (citing Commonwealth v. Penn, 497 Pa. 232, 439 A.2d 1154 (1982); Commonwealth v. Roots, 482 Pa. 33, 393 A.2d 364 (1978); Commonwealth v. Terrell, 234 Pa.Super. 325, 339 A.2d 112 (1975)). Accord Commonwealth v. Washington, 488 Pa. 133, 411 A.2d 490 (1979) ("a testimonial reference indicating to the jury that the accused has been engaged in other criminal activity, denies the accused a fair trial . . ."); Commonwealth v. Spruill, 480 Pa. 601, 391 A.2d 1048 (1978) ("Evidence of prior criminal activity . . . is probably only equalled by a confession in its prejudicial impact upon a jury"). The import of this rule is no less in non-jury trials: In re Johnson, 445 Pa. 270, 275, 284 A.2d 780, 783 (1971) (citing Commonwealth v. Oglesby, 438 Pa. 91, 263 A.2d 419 *248 (1970); Levin & Cohen, The Exclusionary Rule in Nonjury Criminal Cases, 119 U.Pa.L.Rev. 905 (1971)). Notwithstanding this evidentiary rule and the clear admonitions against offering inadmissible evidence and asking legally objectionable questions, ABA Standards § 5.6(b), the prosecutor in the present case engaged in the following impermissible cross-examination of the appellant: "It is long settled that a prior inconsistent statement may be used to impeach a witness." Commonwealth v. Brown, 302 Pa.Super. 391, 400, 448 A.2d 1097, 1102 (1982) (quoting Commonwealth v. Hensley, 295 Pa.Super. 225, 233, 441 A.2d 431, 435 (1982) (citations omitted)). However, when attempting to discredit a witness' in-court testimony, there must be evidence that the prior inconsistent statement was made or adopted by the witness whose credibility is being impeached. See Commonwealth v. Baez, 494 Pa. 388, 431 A.2d 909 (1981); Commonwealth v. Brown, supra. At trial in the instant matter, the prosecutor attempted to impeach the appellant on cross-examination by referring to a statement allegedly given by Deborah Parker to the police relating a conversation between her and the appellant. When asked if he had ever spoken to Ms. Parker *249 about the events of February 4, 1983, however, the appellant unequivocally stated: "I didn't tell her nothing." Nevertheless, in spite of this denial of making a prior statement and notwithstanding the Commonwealth's failure to present extrinsic evidence of those alleged prior statements, the prosecutor posed the following questions to the appellant: Because the Commonwealth did not offer evidence that the statements allegedly made to Deborah Parker were "made or adopted by the witness whose credibility is being impeached", this mode of cross-examination was plainly improper. As such, the conduct of the prosecutor was contrary to the ABA Standards which provide: "It is unprofessional conduct for a prosecutor knowingly and for the purpose of bringing inadmissible matter to the attention of the judge or jury to offer inadmissible evidence, ask legally objectionable questions, or make other impermissible comments or arguments in the presence of the judge or jury." ABA Standards § 5.6(b). See also Model Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-106(C)(1) ("In appearing in his professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not: (1) state or allude to any matter that he has no reasonable basis to believe is relevant to the case or that will not be supported by admissible evidence.") Moreover, in his closing speech before the bench, the assistant district attorney also expressed the following: It is clearly improper for the prosecuting attorney "to express his personal belief or opinion as to the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence on the guilt of the defendant." ABA Standards § 5.8(b). See also Commonwealth v. Bricker, 506 Pa. 571, 487 A.2d 346 (1985) (it is misconduct for a prosecutor to express a personal opinion of a defendant's guilt or credibility); Commonwealth v. Cherry, 474 Pa. 295, 378 A.2d 800 (1977); Commonwealth v. Revty, 448 Pa. 512, 295 A.2d 300 (1972); Commonwealth v. Potter, 445 Pa. 284, 285 A.2d 492 (1971); Commonwealth v. Hickman, 319 Pa.Super. 261, 466 A.2d 148 (1983). Accord Model Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-106(C)(4) ("In appearing in his professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not: . . . (4) assert his personal opinion . . . as to the credibility of a witness, . . . or as to the guilt or innocence of an accused. . . ."). Finally, yet another episode of prosecutorial misconduct transpired during the assistant district attorney's closing argument when he propounded the following: The only reference to the appellant's alleged use of heroin came on cross-examination by the prosecution: In light of this unequivocal denial of heroin addiction, the prosecutor's argument that the appellant was acting "in his heroin starvation paranoia" is plainly beyond the realm of "reasonable inferences from the record" and also goes beyond the central issues in the case. See ABA Standards § 5.8(a), (c). See also Commonwealth v. Bricker, 506 Pa. 571, 487 A.2d 346 (1985) (a prosecutor must limit statements to facts in evidence and legitimate inferences therefrom); Commonwealth v. Starks, 479 Pa. 51, 387 A.2d 829 (1978) ("the fact that an issue is before the jury does not justify counsel's over-emphasis of an illegal and socially reprehensible activity in a manner calculated to arouse the prejudice of the jury in resolving the ultimate issue of the guilt or innocence of the defendant with respect to the murder and firearm charges"); Commonwealth v. Adkins, 468 Pa. 465, 364 A.2d 287 (1976) (new trial required where prosecutor in his closing argument ascribed to a homicide defendant a motive that could not reasonably be drawn from the evidence). We agree with the court in Commonwealth v. Starks "that the district attorney must have `reasonable latitude in fairly presenting a case to the jury, and that the trial judge must have reasonable discretion in deciding whether the bounds of propriety have been exceeded.'" 479 Pa. at 59, 387 A.2d at 833 (quoting Commonwealth v. Cronin, 464 Pa. 138, 143, 346 A.2d 59, 62 (1975)). We also acknowledge that perhaps latitude may be broader in cases tried before a judge alone. Nevertheless, as the court concluded in Starks, "we cannot avoid the conclusion that the aggregate of the remarks by the district attorney in the instant case *253 was of such a nature as to deprive the appellant of a fair trial." Id. 479 Pa. at 59-60, 387 A.2d at 833 (footnote and citations omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Hickman, 319 Pa.Super. 261, 466 A.2d 148 (1983) (new trial mandated where cumulative effect of the district attorney's remarks so prejudiced the defendant that a fair trial was impossible); Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 254 Pa.Super. 454, 386 A.2d 37 (1978) (reversible error exists where the cumulative effect of improper statements made by the prosecuting attorney so prejudices the jury as to prevent a fair trial). The second issue raised by the appellant is whether the evidence presented by the Commonwealth is sufficient to sustain the verdict. Here, the evidence in the record, read in light most favorable to the Commonwealth, refutes appellant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent and malice aforethought. The testimony establishes that the appellant knew the force and instrument used (a purse strap) were likely to kill and the trial court could properly infer the requisite intent from the circumstances and use of the instrument. See Commonwealth v. Clark, 270 Pa.Super. 441, 411 A.2d 800 (1979) (malice may be shown by the defendant's use of a dangerous instrument on a vital part of the victim's body). However, this finding of sufficiency does not disturb our conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a new trial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. Cf. Commonwealth v. Swift, 291 Pa.Super. 90, 435 A.2d 234 (1981). The judgment of sentence is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. Jurisdiction is relinquished. OLSZEWSKI, J., files dissenting opinion. OLSZEWSKI, Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority's opinion granting appellant a new trial. I would affirm the judgment of sentence. The court, sitting as the trier of fact, is presumed to be able to ignore inflammatory evidence or impermissible argument. *254 Commonwealth v. Davis, 491 Pa. 363, 421 A.2d 179 (1980); Commonwealth v. Glover, 266 Pa.Super. 531, 405 A.2d 945 (1979). The majority acknowledges the court's detachment, yet in this case holds that the statements at issue were so prejudicial as to overcome that detachment. Merely because prosecutorial statements are "highly emotional" does not mean they should be presumed to prejudice the court. I would require the appellant to show the prejudicial effect of inflammatory evidence or impermissible argument, evidenced by statements made by the court, before granting a new trial in cases such as the one at bar. Accordingly, since appellant has not shown such an effect, I would affirm the judgment of sentence. [1] On direct examination, the appellant testified that in 1975 he pleaded guilty and was sentenced for two bank larcenies. Those charges, accordingly, were not before the court in the instant litigation.