Summary
This is a dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Saylor in a capital post-conviction appeal concerning the admission of evidence relating to an uncharged triple murder. The dissent concludes that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a proper balancing of the evidence’s probative value against its prejudicial impact and would award a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appellant's post-conviction claim concerning trial counsel's failure to seek a probative-value-versus-prejudice determination for evidence of an uncharged triple murder was previously litigated.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue exclusion of the highly prejudicial uncharged-murder evidence under the balancing requirement applicable to other-bad-acts evidence.
- Whether the admission and use of the uncharged triple-murder evidence denied the appellant a fair trial.
Key quotations
“In summary, in my considered judgment trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a determination by the trial court that the probative value of the evidence of the collateral triple murder was substantially outweighed by the inflammatory impact. Accordingly, I would award a new trial and respectfully dissent.” (slip op. at 6)
Factual background
At Hannibal's trial, the Commonwealth introduced evidence that he participated in the uncharged triple murder of Tanesha Robinson and two other young women, including evidence that the killings occurred in the presence of a baby. The evidence rested largely on testimony from jailhouse informant James Buigi, although two eyewitnesses placed Hannibal at the charged crime scene as an armed aggressor and Buigi also testified that Hannibal confessed to the charged killing. Trial counsel objected to some of the evidence and moved for a mistrial, but, according to the dissent, failed to obtain the required balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice.
Procedural history
Hannibal was convicted and sentenced in connection with the murder for which he was tried. On direct appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected claims relating to the admission of evidence concerning the uncharged murders of Tanesha Robinson and two other young women. The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County entered the order dated January 9, 2015 that was appealed in this matter. The majority concluded that the present claim had been previously litigated, while Chief Justice Saylor's dissent would review the claim and award a new trial.
Remand instructions
None stated for the majority disposition. The dissent would award a new trial.