Court Opinion

ID: 9767408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:18:56.186722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:31.038671
License: Public Domain

TAMILIA, Judge,
dissenting:
While I agree with the majority’s conclusion that “there is no substantive distinction between the prejudice standard applicable on direct appeal and the prejudice standard applicable under the PCRA”, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s Opinion which finds petitioner has satisfied this standard under the facts of the instant case.
Our Supreme Court has held that “under [Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973 (1987),] and its progeny, a defendant is required to show that counsel’s ineffectiveness was of such magnitude that the verdict essentially would have been different absent counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness.” Commonwealth v. Howard, 538 Pa. 86, 100, 645 A.2d 1300, 1308 (1994). Justice Cappy’s dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Buehl, 540 Pa. 493, 658 A.2d 771 (1995), upon which the majority expressly relies, also recognizes that a defendant has the burden of establishing “that there is a reasonable probability that but for the act or omission in question the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 516, 658 A.2d at 783 (Cappy, dissenting).
The majority finds that petitioner has fulfilled this burden by demonstrating that defense counsel failed to elicit from James Shortridge evidence that he had entered into an agreement with the Commonwealth, whereby he would be allowed to serve his sentence in a county jail, rather than a state prison, in exchange for his testimony that petitioner admitted strangling the victim. I believe the majority dramatically overstates the importance of Mr. Shortridge’s testimony. In fact, my review of the record indicates substantial, independent evidence that the victim died of strangulation, rather than from karate chops, as alleged by petitioner. In light of this evidence, I would find that petitioner is unable to show the verdict adjudicating him guilty of first degree murder *206“essentially would have been different absent counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness.” Howard, supra.
Initially, Dr. Isadore Mihalakis, a forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy on the victim, testified to his belief, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the victim “died as a result of manual strangulation with fracture of the thyroid cartilage [Adam’s apple] and the hyoid bone.” (N.T., 12/4/89, p. 244.) Moreover, he testified that the injury to the victim’s thyroid cartilage was “characteristic of a manual strangulation.” (N.T. at 237.) These facts, among others, led Dr. Mihalakis to express his opinion, again within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the victim did not die from karate chops, as alleged by petitioner (N.T. at 238).
Petitioner claims this clear and convincing medical testimony was undermined by the defense medical expert, Dr. Cyril Wecht. However, on cross-examination, Dr.,Wecht testified as follows:
Q. [DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: ... Doctor, you would agree, wouldn’t you, that the fractures of the right greater horn of the hyoid bone and the left superior horn of the thyroid cartilage were significant autopsy findings by Dr. Mihalakis?
A. [DR. WECHT]: Yes.
Q. In fact, the most significant?
A. Yes.
Q. And isn’t that because those injuries are consistent with, in fact, usually found in manual strangulations?
A. They’re consistent with strangulation, and statistically, they would be found most often in manual strangulation [then] with ligature strangulation, and then with blows to the neck, probably in that order, statistically.
Q. So if Dr. Mihalakis testified that those injuries are characteristic of manual strangulation, would you agree?
A. Yes. That is a reasonable statement.
(N.T., 12/7/89, pp. 574-575.) Thus, although Dr. Wecht was unable to express an opinion as to the victim’s cause of death *207within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, he clearly testified that the probability that the victim died from manual strangulation was “statistically” higher than the probability she died from karate chops. In fact, as the above-quoted testimony indicates, Dr. Wecht believed blows to the neck were the least likely cause of death of the three possibilities expressed.
On further cross-examination, the district attorney presented to Dr. Wecht a text entitled “The Medical Logical Investigation of Death, Guidelines for the Application of Pathology to Crime Investigation ” (N.T. at 595). Dr. Wecht stated that he was familiar with the text and its author, Dr. Warner U. Spitz (N.T. at 595-596). Dr. Wecht then testified as follows:
Q. Let me read something to you. Would you agree if Warner Spitz wrote that, “Fractures of the larynx, including the hyoid bone and thyroid and cricoid cartilages are frequently associated with manual strangulation.” Would you agree with that?
A. Yes.
(N.T. at 596.)1 Taken as a whole, Dr. Wecht’s testimony supports, rather than contradicts, Dr. Mihalakis’ central finding that the victim died as a result of manual strangulation. The only difference was the degree of certainty with which the doctors were able to express their respective opinions.
Lastly, and most importantly, the Commonwealth elicited the following testimony on direct examination of the victim’s neighbor, John Strausser:
Q. The late night hours of Thursday [July 21,1988], that is after midnight, in the early morning hours of Friday [July 22, 1988], what were you doing? Were you awake? Were you asleep?
A. No, I was sleeping.
Q. And where were you sleeping?
A. In the middle bedroom.
*208Q. In this same apartment building [where the victim lived]?
A. Yes.
Q. And is there anything unusual that happened in those early morning hours while — that you can remember?
A. Yes.
Q. Describe clearly, loudly for the jury what unusual . happened in your life at that time?
A. Okay, I was sleeping and. I was awakened by Rosemary screaming, “Help me”, either [“]he is choking me”, or “They’re choking me.” So I got up looked at the clock, walked out to the front room, looked out the window. I didn’t see nothing, I didn’t hear anything else. So I more or less went back to bed and went to sleep.
Q. So you went back to bed, do you know if anybody went downstairs to look into it further?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Is there any doubt in your mind about who was screaming those words?
A. No.
(N.T., 11/28/89, pp. 98-99.) Thus, at the precise time petitioner admits killing the victim, a neighbor, who knew the victim and was familiar with her voice, heard her scream that someone was “choking her.” The victim’s final words, which provide powerful and competent evidence of the manner in which she died, must not again fall on deaf ears.
In conclusion, I find ample, compelling and independent evidence that petitioner killed the victim by manual strangulation, rather than karate chops. Thus, even assuming defense counsel was ineffective for failing to elicit from James Shortridge evidence of his deal with the Commonwealth, petitioner is unable to meet his burden of establishing that but for the ineffectiveness the outcome of his trial “essentially would have been different[.]” Howard, supra. Hence, I dissent.

. The district attorney also noted a passage from the text in which Dr. Spitz states, "I have never seen a hyoid bone fractured by a blow to the neck.” (N.T. at 597.)