Opinion ID: 3040111
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prior Incarceration Comment

Text: The second allegation is that the prosecutor intentionally and improperly elicited testimony of a prior incarceration from Fahy. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania noted that Fahy’s answer was unsolicited and promptly stricken. Fahy 1, 516 A.2d at 697. It further observed that the answer did not indicate that he was convicted of a crime or the nature of the crime, and the comment was not exploited later in the trial or during closing arguments. Id. Thus, the Court concluded that the “single, unintentional reference did not inflame the passions and prejudices of the jury to the extent that Appellant was denied a fair trial.” Id. The District Court concluded that the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. We agree. The questioning by the prosecutor proceeded as follows: Q. Mr. Fahy[,] approximately how long did you live at 2063 East Rush Street? A. For about two years. Q. And how often did you during that two year period did you live there? A. Very often. Q. For approximately how many months in the year of 68 1980 did you live there? A. Months? Q. Yes. How many of the months in 1980 did you live there? A. As far as I know, all of them. Q. You were never living anywhere else besides 2063 in 1980? A. Not that I can remember; no. Q. In 1979, how many months did you live there? A. ‘79 (There was a long extended pause.) I’m not sure. I think I was-(Pause) I think I could have been locked up for- Mr. Greene: Objection. THE COURT: Strike from the record the witness’ last answer to that question as not being responsive. Mr. Fahy, would you please answer specific questions? Don’t volunteer, or go into- THE WITNESS: I’m trying to, Your Honor. 69 THE COURT: The question was, how many months and you can tell us how many months. Now, you can’t— THE WITNESS: Well, I am— I believe that me and Cookie [Fahy’s then-girlfriend] got in a few arguments and I was away from the house-oh, for maybe about a day or two, at my mother’s or different places until Cookie cooled down. But, I don’t believe I was ever away from the house in ‘79 for any month at all. Fahy argues that “the prosecutor knew or should have known that probing repeatedly into Mr. Fahy’s whereabouts at the time in question would likely lead to his prior incarceration being revealed. In fact, that was the manifest purpose of the line of questioning.” The record fails to support this argument. As the District Court pointed out, the question posed called for no more than a simple numerical answer. The prosecutor asked Fahy directly how many months during 1979 he lived across the street from Nicky Caserta. As for any wrongful purpose behind the question, the prosecutor clarified at side-bar that Fahy lied on direct examination when he said that he lived at the house across the street from the victim for two years, because for most of those years he was in and out of jail. It was permissible, therefore, for the prosecutor to ask a question designed to place the defendant’s credibility in question, and to undermine his contention that he had a close relationship with his victim. This claim provides no basis for a finding of prosecutorial misconduct. And assuming, arguendo, that there was improper conduct on the part of the prosecutor, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court correctly identified that the 70 applicable test is ultimately whether that conduct denied the defendant a fair trial. Fahy 1, 516 A.2d at 697. That Court’s conclusion that Fahy was not denied a fair trial is neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of United States Supreme Court precedent.