Com. v. Wenzel, R. No. 417 WDA 2020
In the case of Commonwealth v. Wenzel, the defendant had an active arrest warrant. When the officers served the warrant and attempted to arrest the defendant, he resisted arrest and the police were forced to use substantial force to overcome the resistance. The defendant was convicted at trial and raises several issues on appeal.
In his first issue, he claims the court erred in precluding the testimony of Joel Burkett, a doctor of chiropractic medicine. In order to be deemed an expert witness, the witness must possess more expertise than is within the ordinary range of training, knowledge, intelligence, or experience. The determination of whether a witness is qualified to be an expert is left to the trial courts discretion and will only be overturned on an abuse of that discretion. In this case, it was determined that Dr. Burkett lied about his credentials. The trial court found that because of his lack of credentials and the fact that he lied about his credentials, he could not be qualified as an expert. Further, because any testimony would require specialized knowledge, he could also not testify as a lay witness. The Superior Court found no abuse of discretion.
In his second issue, the defendant claims that the prosecution failed to disclose information related to an internal affairs investigation and that failure constituted a Brady violation. In order to establish a brady violation the defendant must prove that the evidence was suppressed by the state either willfully or inadvertently, the evidence was favorable to the defendant either because it is exculpatory or could be used for impeachment, and that the evidence was material in that its omission resulted in prejudice to the defendant. The court found here that because the Commonwealth did not even know about the investigation until after the trial, there was no evidence that it was willfully or inadvertently suppressed. As such, no Brady violation can be established. In addition, even if it was willfully or inadvertently suppressed, any error was harmless.
In the next issue, the defendant claims the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense and precluding the defense counsel from arguing self defense in closing. In order to get a self defense jury instruction, a valid claim of self defense must be made out as a matter of law and this determination must be made by the trial court. Here, it is undisputed that the defendant was aware the arresting officers were peace officers effectuating an arrest. Even if he believed that the arrest was unlawful, it did not justify the defendants use of force. Thus there was no basis upon which to instruct the jury on self defense. The final issue raised is that the court erred by failing to compel the attendance of an officer subpoenaed by the defense. The defendant maintains that he served the witness a subpoena by certified mail, return receipt requested but the subpoena was returned as unclaimed. Because defense could not show any proof of service, no relief is due. As the defendant is not entitled to relief on any claim, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Our Clients are entitled to a Bill of Rights which states:
- Our clients have the right to expect, we will be proactive in communication. You will hear it from us first. We will return all phone calls, texts and emails promptly.
- Our clients have the right to expect plain speaking, straight shooting. No B. S.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to do it right the first time, every time.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to be on time and professionally prepared for all court appearances, and all meetings.
- Our clients have the right to expect that they will be fully informed at all times.
This is our promise to you. Call today to get us on your side: (717) 657-3900.
