Opinion ID: 1972943
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Analysis Klinger Appeal

Text: In reviewing the record in this appeal, the undisputed testimony during the trial indicated that appellant walked into the West Shore Youth Counseling Center in Camp Hill at approximately 7:20 a.m. on Friday, May 28, 1976, and he met Vincent O'Reilly, a counselor. Klinger apparently told O'Reilly that he wanted to turn himself in to his parole officer because he had been in violation of the terms of his parole. [11] Appellant called his mother from O'Reilly's office and asked her to pick him up at a nearby shopping center and to drive him to his parole officer. The deceased, Hazel Pulaski, was seen meeting Klinger in her brown Pinto at the shopping center at approximately 7:40 a.m. and the two drove away from that location together. At approximately 9:15 a.m., Klinger arrived at the house of his friend, Carole Durkin, in Camp Hill, without his mother. He arrived at Ms. Durkin's house in his mother's car. Mrs. Pulaski, appellant's mother, was found dead ten days later in a remote mountainous area at Lambs Gap. It was stipulated by counsel and the jury was advised that if Klinger murdered his mother, that act would have occurred within the period between 7:40 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. on May 28, 1976. The disputed trial focused upon the events that occurred during that time frame between 7:40 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. The Commonwealth proceeded on the theory that Klinger and his mother drove to Lambs Gap where he killed her and left her facedown near a small stream. It was contended that he then drove to the home of Carole Durkin where he spent the remainder of the morning. That evening Klinger drove to the Maryland shore with his girlfriend, Allyson Weiss, where the two remained until Monday evening, May 31. By that time, search efforts had begun for Mrs. Pulaski, and suspicion of foul play centered on appellant. Appellant eluded authorities until his arrest on Wednesday, June 2. The Commonwealth's case stressed Klinger's motive, an opportunity to kill his mother, his familiarity with the Lambs Gap area and his week in flight to Maryland and other furtive activity following his mother's disappearance. The defense's version of the events of May 28 was markedly different. Klinger testified that on that morning, he drove his mother to Millers Gap, a site approximately 3¼ miles distance from Lambs Gap, where appellant sought his mother's help in locating camping equipment that he stated he had left in that location the previous day. According to appellant's testimony, he and his mother separated in an effort to comb the area in search of the equipment. Once appellant realized that he had lost sight of his mother, he testified that he retraced his steps to the car and drove away intending to spend one last weekend with Allyson Weiss before he went to jail for a parole violation. He testified that he was certain that she would go to Tillie Miller's home, which was located in Millers Gap. After leaving Millers Gap, appellant, through a brief detour, proceeded to Lambs Gap Road in order to locate two individuals from whom he intended to buy marijuana. He saw them on the side of the road, waved at them but did not stop as the traffic did not permit him to do so. He then testified that he proceeded from that point directly to the Durkin home. Klinger stated that when he returned from Maryland on Monday evening, he first learned that his mother was missing and that he was a suspect. He admitted eluding authorities until June 2. He stated that he did this because he had heard the police would shoot him. The defense focused upon the fact that Klinger's version of the events of May 28 and subsequent period remained consistent from the time of his arrest to the time of trial, and was, in large measure, corroborated by the Commonwealth's witnesses. The defense also attempted to direct suspicion on Robert Pulaski, Klinger's stepfather, by showing that Robert had both a motive and an opportunity to kill the victim. Cross-examination of Robert Pulaski elicited several inconsistencies as to his activities and whereabouts on the morning in question, and these inconsistencies were utilized by the defense in their effort to place blame on Robert Pulaski. It was agreed by both sides that Klinger could have travelled from Camp Hill to either Lambs or Millers Gap and then to Carole Durkin's within the time frame agreed upon. The court's charge to the jury stressed the Commonwealth's burden of proof and mentioned several facts for the jury to consider: whether another person may have been responsible for the death; whether the killing occurred in an area other than where the body was found; the effect of prior consistent and inconsistent statements; and how the jury should construe evidence of motive and flight. The first argument raised by appellant is that the dismissal of the conspiracy charges against an alleged co-defendant of appellant bars further prosecution of appellant for those charges. In addition to the fact this argument was not raised either in the trial court or in the appeal to the Superior Court, appellant fails to recognize the limited scope of review accorded in the instant interlocutory appeal. This appeal is before us pursuant to our decision in Commonwealth v. Bolden, 472 Pa. 602, 373 A.2d 90 (1977). That decision provided an exception to the general rule that interlocutory appeals will not be entertained. The Bolden exception was expressly limited to double jeopardy claims, and our cases have made clear that we will not permit piggybacking. Commonwealth v. Klobuchir, 486 Pa. 241, 248, 405 A.2d 881, 884, n. 5 (1979). Thus, his first argument has been improperly raised at this time and will not be considered. Turning next to the issue that occasioned the present review, appellant argues that the doctrine of collateral estoppel should be construed as providing an automatic bar to all perjury prosecution which stems from testimony of an acquitted defendant during the substantive trial. In our holding in the companion case, we rejected the concept now being urged. To the contrary, case law has made it clear that where such a claim is raised, the record must be examined to determine whether or not the prerequisites for issue preclusion have been met. United States v. Sarno, supra ; United States v. Venable, 585 F.2d 71 (3d Cir. 1978); United States v. Nash, supra . A blanket prophylactic rule such as the one urged is clearly not constitutionally mandated, Ashe v. Swenson, supra , and completely ignores the state's strong interest in ensuring the veracity of sworn testimony given in its courts. United States v. Sarno, supra ; United States v. Fayer, 573 F.2d 741 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 831, 99 S.Ct. 108, 58 L.Ed.2d 125 (1978); Adams v. United States, 287 F.2d 701 (5th Cir. 1961). It is to be noted that appellant has enmeshed in his collateral estoppel argument contentions that could be properly considered in the perjury trial itself. These considerations are obviously not now germane and will not be discussed. [12] We caution, however, that our failure to note these arguments in this opinion is in no way indicative of a qualitative evaluation of their merits in proper context. Insofar as these factors were raised in support of appellant's contention that a prophylactic rule is required, they were considered. We remain unpersuaded that the accepted rules of collateral estoppel are inadequate to protect against prosecutorial harassment. We also are of the view that the balance between the competing interest involved in this area is best preserved by the adherence to the existing standard. Addressing the specific counts approved by the Superior Court for trial, we turn first to Count II. [13] Count II, in essence, charges that the appellant lied when he stated that he saw and waved to certain acquaintances on Lambs Gap Road on the morning in question and further avers that in fact he did not see them. Assuming for these purposes that this testimony was material, our examination of the record reveals no basis to justify issue preclusion because of the previous trial. There is clearly no reason to suggest that the verdict in the murder trial reflected an acceptance of this portion of appellant's testimony. In discussing this count, the dissent stresses the unlikelihood of a successful prosecution on this ground. While we are inclined to agree on the record as it presently exists, that fact has no bearing upon the applicability of collateral estoppel. On the other hand, Count III does present a serious problem, and we agree with appellant that the issue he seeks to foreclose was finally litigated in the prior proceeding. That count seeks to establish that appellant lied when he testified that he last saw his mother during the search for his camping equipment. To the contrary, it is contended that he last saw his mother when he struck her. The majority of the Superior Court attempted to avoid the consequences of the collateral estoppel rule by suggesting that although the jury found that he did not cause his mother's death, there was no occasion for them to conclude that appellant did not strike his mother. This reasoning, in our view, is totally unacceptable. Under all of the evidence presented at the first trial, there was indication of only one assault, which was the fatal assault accomplished by one assailant. To suggest that the jury fantasized a second altercation represents the type of rationalization that Ashe condemns. We are satisfied that the jury's verdict in the murder trial, finding that appellant did not commit the fatal assault, also included the finding that appellant did not assault her on the morning in question. Thus, a relitigation of that issue would be improper. As to Count V, our conclusions are substantially the same as those expressed with reference to Count II. Count V charges that appellant lied when he stated the first person he spoke to about the events of the morning in question was a Mr. Nielson. To the contrary, it is stated that he made certain earlier statements to another individual. Here again we cannot say that the jury's verdict of acquittal reasonably reflects that they accepted as true this testimony and, therefore, there is no basis to foreclose the perjury prosecution on this count. [14] So too with Counts VI and VII. Count VI relates to the route taken and Count VII charges a conspiracy between appellant and his trial counsel to commit perjury. In each of these instances, there is no basis for finding collateral estoppel to apply. Accordingly, the Order of the Superior Court affirming the trial court is affirmed as to Counts II, V, VI and VII. The Order is reversed as to Count III, and the appellant is discharged as to Count III. EAGEN, former C.J., did not participate in the decision of this case.