J-S32002-14 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

SHAWN LOUIS ECKLUND 

 Appellant No. 1665 WDA 2012 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 3, 2012 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County 

Criminal Division at No(s): C.R. No.m. 852-2011 

 CP-61-CR-0000852-2011 

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., DONOHUE, J., and ALLEN, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.: FILED AUGUST 5, 2014 

 Appellant, Shawn Louis Ecklund, appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered August 3, 2012, by the Honorable H. William White, Jr., 

Court of Common Pleas of Venango County. We affirm. 

 Following a four-day jury trial, on June 22, 2012, Ecklund was 

convicted of Aggravated Assault – Serious Bodily Injury Attempted,1

Intimidation of Witness,2

 Endangering the Welfare of Children,3 Terroristic 

Threats,4

 and Simple Assault.5 On August 3, 2012, the trial court sentenced 

____________________________________________ 

1

 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1). 

2

 18 Pa.C.S. § 4952(a)(1). 

3

 18 Pa.C.S. § 4304(a)(1). 

4

 18 Pa.C.S. § 2706(a)(1). 

5

 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1). 
J-S32002-14 

- 2 - 

Ecklund to an aggregate term of eight to twenty years’ incarceration, 

followed by five years’ probation. The trial court denied Ecklund’s postsentence motion requesting a new trial on August 10, 2012. This timely 

appeal followed. 

 On appeal, Ecklund raises the following issues for our review: 

I. Whether or not, due to prosecutorial misconduct, the 

appellant was denied due process and a fair trial under the 

5

th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution 

and Article, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution? 

II. Whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in 

failing to grant a mistrial based upon the actions of the 

assistant district attorney? 

Appellant’s Brief at 4. 

Our standard of review for a claim of prosecutorial misconduct is 

limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. See 

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 39 A.3d 341, 352 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation 

omitted), appeal denied, 51 A.3d 838 (Pa. 2012). “To constitute a due 

process violation, the prosecutorial misconduct must be of sufficient 

significance to result in the denial of the defendant's right to a fair trial.” 

Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111, 1181 (Pa. 2011) (citation 

omitted). “The touchstone is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of 

the prosecutor.” Id. 

A prosecutor may make fair comment on the admitted evidence 

and may provide fair rebuttal to defense arguments. Even an 

otherwise improper comment may be appropriate if it is in fair 

response to defense counsel's remarks. Any challenge to a 

prosecutor’s comment must be evaluated in the context in which 

the comment was made. ... 
J-S32002-14 

- 3 - 

Not every unwise, intemperate, or improper remark made by a 

prosecutor mandates the grant of a new trial: 

Reversible error occurs only when the unavoidable effect of 

the challenged comments would prejudice the jurors and 

form in their minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the 

defendant such that the jurors could not weigh the 

evidence and render a true verdict. 

Id. at 1181-1182 (internal citations omitted). 

In the argument portion of his brief, Ecklund first recites our standard 

for reviewing claims of prosecutorial misconduct and then proceeds to 

outline 14 alleged instances of misconduct. Many of these allegations are 

not misconduct at all, but, for example, descriptions of trial court rulings. 

See, e.g., Appellant’s Brief at 11 ¶ d. (“The result of the pretrial hearing was 

favorable for Ecklund....”). In the instances of misconduct categorized in the 

brief, Ecklund is quick to vilify the prosecutor’s “talent for lying and 

misleading the court, as well as his inability to follow court orders” or his 

“arrogance for verifications and certificate’s [sic] of service, as well as his 

overall disregard in the filing and handling of court related documents.” Id. 

at 10, 11. Ecklund even goes so far as to provide a section devoted to “past 

and/or previous conduct” of the prosecutor in cases other than that before 

the Court in this case. Id. at 15-16. Notably absent from Ecklund’s 

argument is any detailed discussion or analysis of how the prosecutor’s 

alleged misconduct in this case prejudiced his right to a fair trial below or 

otherwise prejudiced the jurors such that they “could not weigh the evidence 

and render a true verdict.” Chmiel, supra. Indeed, Ecklund fails to provide 
J-S32002-14 

- 4 - 

any meaningful legal analysis of his individual claims and his argument 

neglects to set forth a discussion of relevant case law as to whether the 

prosecutor’s actions even amount to misconduct. 

In a tacit acknowledgment of this omission, Ecklund urges that “[i]f 

you look at the objections, as isolated incidents in a vacuum, then Ecklund 

and his counsel would agree with the trial court [that Ecklund received a fair 

trial].” Appellant’s Brief at 17. Ecklund continues that, “[h]owever, it is [the 

prosecutor’s] course of conduct that is in question and it is this course of 

conduct that denied Ecklund the opportunity for a fair trial in this matter.” 

Id. 

We note it is well settled that “no number of failed claims may 

collectively attain merit if they could not do so individually.” Chmiel, 30 

A.3d at 1186 (citation omitted). Here, because Ecklund has failed to 

establish that any of his claims of prosecutorial misconduct merit relief 

individually, he cannot do so on a cumulative basis. 

As Ecklund has failed to establish he was denied the right to a fair trial 

as a result of the prosecutor’s actions when taken individually, we are 

constrained to find that Ecklund’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct do not 

warrant relief. Consequently, we also find no abuse of discretion in the trial 

court’s refusal to declare a mistrial. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 
J-S32002-14 

- 5 - 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/5/2014