Background
J-A08011-25 J-A08012-25 J-A08013-25 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : DERRICK CHAPPELL : No. 1256 EDA 2024 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 28, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0003607-1999 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : SAM GRASTY : No. 1257 EDA 2024 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 28, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0003608-1999 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : MORTON JOHNSON : No. 1258 EDA 2024 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 28, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0003609-1999 BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
background biology” on the green jacket. See FACL’s DNA Report, 1/12/22, at 1-37; see also Joint Defense Exhibit 6 (Keel’s Expert Report), at 6; Joint Defense Exhibit 9 (Palmbach’s Expert Report), at 3-5. The only portions of this evidence known prior to the Petitioners’ trials were that the DNA results of the semen in Nickens’ rectum and the semen DNA on the green jacket specifically excluded the Petitioners. See Greensburg Laboratory Report, 10/25/01, at 1-6. This new evidence shows that multiple items not only exclude Petitioners from ever having been in the apartment but show that there is one other possible perpetrator—UM1. See FACL’s DNA Report, 1/12/22, 1-37; see also Joint Defense Exhibit 6 (Keel’s Expert Report), at 6; Joint Defense Exhibit 9 (Palmbach’s Expert Report), at 3-5. The grade and character of this evidence exceeds that of the wooden board, blanket, towel, and sock tested in Murchison and, as such, I -7- J-A08011-25 J-A08012-25 J-A08013-25 conclude that Murchison is not only factually distinct but legally supports a new trial for the petitioners in the instant case. Notably, in Murchison, Willis was not sexually assaulted, and the semen evidence was wholly irrelevant because she was known to prostitute herself. Additionally, as I highlighted supra, the wooden slat, the basis of Murchison’s PCRA petition, had been tested pre- trial and the results specifically excluded Murchison. Consequently, the basis for the PCRA petition, re-testing of the wooden slat, was entirely cumulative of the pre-trial DNA evidence.
The Court’s Holding
In my view, the PCRA court’s opinion does not impede our review and there is no need to reprimand the PCRA court merely for authoring a brief decision. Indeed, this Court has often affirmed cases with sparse trial court opinions without so much as a mention and to reprimand the instant PCRA court despite its efforts to conduct otherwise thorough proceedings is unnecessary.
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- In my view, the PCRA court’s opinion does not impede our review and there is no need to reprimand the PCRA court merely for authoring a brief decision.
- Indeed, this Court has often affirmed cases with sparse trial court opinions without so much as a mention and to reprimand the instant PCRA court despite its efforts to conduct otherwise thorough proceedings is unnecessary.
- The only portions of this evidence known prior to the Petitioners’ trials were that the DNA results of the semen in Nickens’ rectum and the semen DNA on the green jacket specifically excluded the Petitioners.
Why It Matters
Superior Court reverses new-trial orders based on later DNA testing Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.