corrupt source instruction in Pennsylvania

2018See Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167, 1182 (Pa. 1999) (rejecting claim of counsel ineffectiveness for failure to request a “corrupt source” instruction where counsel argued at trial that defendant was not involved in the killing); Commonwealth v. Karabin, 426 A.2d 91, 93-94 (Pa. 1981) (trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a corrupt source instruction, which would have implied that the defendant participated in criminal activity of which he claimed to be innocent, as this would have derogated the defense strategy); Commonwealth v. Corley, 816 A.2d 1109, 1115 (Pa.Super

2018Commonwealth v. Williams, 557 Pa. 207 , 732 A.2d 1167, 1181 (1999).

2020“A corrupt source instruction advises the jury that if it finds that a certain witness who testified against the defendant was an accomplice of the defendant in a crime for which he is being tried, then the jury should deem that witness a ‘corrupt and polluted source’ whose testimony should be considered with caution.” Commonwealth v. Collins, 957 A.2d 237, 262 (Pa. 2008).

2020A corrupt source instruction “is warranted only in cases in which there is sufficient evidence to present a jury question with respect to whether the witness is an accomplice.” Commonwealth v. Collins, 957 A.2d 237, 262 (Pa. 2008).

2018See Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167, 1182 (Pa. 1999) (rejecting claim of counsel ineffectiveness for failure to request a “corrupt source” instruction where counsel argued at trial that defendant was not involved in the killing); Commonwealth v. Karabin, 426 A.2d 91, 93-94 (Pa. 1981) (trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a corrupt source instruction, which would have implied that the defendant participated in criminal activity of which he claimed to be innocent, as this would have derogated the defense strategy); Commonwealth v. Corley, 816 A.2d 1109, 1115 (Pa.Super

2018See Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167, 1182 (Pa. 1999) (finding trial counsel not ineffective for failing to request accomplice instruction where “[it] would have contradicted [] defense that [appellant] was [not] present at the scene of or involved in any way in the killing.”); Commonwealth v. Karabin, 426 A.2d 91, 93 (Pa. 1981) (rejecting ineffectiveness claim for failing to request corrupt source instruction because it would have implied defendant was accomplice in criminal activity of which he claimed to be innocent).

2017Commonwealth v. Johnson, 437 A.2d 1175, 1177 (Pa. 1981).

2014See Commonwealth v. Karabin, 426 A.2d 91 (Pa. 1981), and Commonwealth v. Johnson, 437 A.2d 1175 (Pa. 1981), holding that trial counsel had a reasonable strategy for not asking for the corrupt and polluted source charge where the instruction was inconsiste crimes in question. error, we must affirm.

2015Commonwealth v.[] Williams, 557 Pa. 207 , 732 A.2d 1167, 1181 (1999); accord Commonwealth v. Hackett, 534 Pa. 210 , 627 A.2d 719, 724 (1993).

2015Commonwealth v.[] Williams, 557 Pa. 207 , 732 A.2d 1167, 1181 (1999); accord Commonwealth v. Hackett, 534 Pa. 210 , 627 A.2d 719, 724 (1993).

1991Commonwealth v. Watts, 348 Pa.Super. 224, 228 , 501 A.2d 1152, 1154 (1985).

1991Commonwealth v. Watts, 348 Pa.Super. 224, 228 , 501 A.2d 1152, 1154 (1985).

2020Such an instruction “is warranted where the evidence is sufficient to present a jury question with respect to whether the Commonwealth’s witness is an accomplice.” Commonwealth v. Hanible, 30 A.3d 426, 462 (Pa. 2011).

2019Hudson, 414 A.2d at 1385 (An accessory after the fact is not an accomplice.);" see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 495 A.2d 543, 549-51 (Pa. 1985)(collecting cases).

2018See Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167, 1182 (Pa. 1999) (rejecting claim of counsel ineffectiveness for failure to request a “corrupt source” instruction where counsel argued at trial that defendant was not involved in the killing); Commonwealth v. Karabin, 426 A.2d 91, 93-94 (Pa. 1981) (trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a corrupt source instruction, which would have implied that the defendant participated in criminal activity of which he claimed to be innocent, as this would have derogated the defense strategy); Commonwealth v. Corley, 816 A.2d 1109, 1115 (Pa.Super

2016See Treiber, 121 A.3d at 459 . - 21 - J-S33002-16 Thus, we discern no error in the PCRA court’s review of this issue.

2016Com. v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35, 70 (Pa. 2012); Com. v. Weiss, 81 A.3d 767, 805 (Pa. 2013).

2016Com. v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35, 70 (Pa. 2012); Com. v. Weiss, 81 A.3d 767, 805 (Pa. 2013).

2006To establish entitlement to a new trial based on an allegation of ineffectiveness of trial counsel, a PCRA petitioner must establish: “(1) that the claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his or her action or inaction; and, (3) that, but for the errors and omissions of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” Commonwealth v. Kimball, 555 Pa. 299 , 724 A.2d 326, 333 (1999).

2006To establish entitlement to a new trial based on an allegation of ineffectiveness of trial counsel, a PCRA petitioner must establish: “(1) that the claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his or her action or inaction; and, (3) that, but for the errors and omissions of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” Commonwealth v. Kimball, 555 Pa. 299 , 724 A.2d 326, 333 (1999).

2003In order for an appellant’s IAC claim to succeed, he or she must establish: “(1) that the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel’s course of conduct was without a reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interest; and (3) that he was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness.” Commonwealth v. Wallace, 555 Pa. 397 , 724 A.2d 916, 921 (1999). ¶ 14 First, Appellant claims that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a corrupt source instruction for Foulds’ testimony, an alleged accomplice.

2003In order for an appellant’s IAC claim to succeed, he or she must establish: “(1) that the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel’s course of conduct was without a reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interest; and (3) that he was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness.” Commonwealth v. Wallace, 555 Pa. 397 , 724 A.2d 916, 921 (1999). ¶ 14 First, Appellant claims that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a corrupt source instruction for Foulds’ testimony, an alleged accomplice.

2003“It is the rule in Pennsylvania that the testimony of an accomplice of a defendant, given at the latter’s trial, comes from a corrupt source and is to be carefully scrutinized and accepted with caution; it is clear error for the trial judge to refuse to give a charge to this effect after being specifically requested to do so.” Commonwealth v. Sisak, 436 Pa. 262 , 259 A.2d 428, 430 (1969).

2003“It is the rule in Pennsylvania that the testimony of an accomplice of a defendant, given at the latter’s trial, comes from a corrupt source and is to be carefully scrutinized and accepted with caution; it is clear error for the trial judge to refuse to give a charge to this effect after being specifically requested to do so.” Commonwealth v. Sisak, 436 Pa. 262 , 259 A.2d 428, 430 (1969).

1999See generally Commonwealth v. Derk, 553 Pa. 325 , 719 A.2d 262 (1998)(equally divided Court).

1999See generally Commonwealth v. Derk, 553 Pa. 325 , 719 A.2d 262 (1998)(equally divided Court).

1999See, e.g., Chmiel, 536 Pa. at 251 , 639 A.2d at 13 (finding a corrupt source instruction required where the evidence revealed an intent on the part of the Commonwealth's chief witness to aid in the commission of a robbery); Commonwealth v. Bricker, 525 Pa. 362, 370-75 , 581 A.2d 147, 150-53 (1990)(holding that the evidence established that the Commonwealth's chief witness, testifying pursuant to a plea agreement and as a participant in the federal witness protection program, was a co-conspirator to a murder).

1999See, e.g., Chmiel, 536 Pa. at 251 , 639 A.2d at 13 (finding a corrupt source instruction required where the evidence revealed an intent on the part of the Commonwealth's chief witness to aid in the commission of a robbery); Commonwealth v. Bricker, 525 Pa. 362, 370-75 , 581 A.2d 147, 150-53 (1990)(holding that the evidence established that the Commonwealth's chief witness, testifying pursuant to a plea agreement and as a participant in the federal witness protection program, was a co-conspirator to a murder).

1999See, e.g., Chmiel, 536 Pa. at 251 , 639 A.2d at 13 (finding a corrupt source instruction required where the evidence revealed an intent on the part of the Commonwealth's chief witness to aid in the commission of a robbery); Commonwealth v. Bricker, 525 Pa. 362, 370-75 , 581 A.2d 147, 150-53 (1990)(holding that the evidence established that the Commonwealth's chief witness, testifying pursuant to a plea agreement and as a participant in the federal witness protection program, was a co-conspirator to a murder).

1999See, e.g., Chmiel, 536 Pa. at 251 , 639 A.2d at 13 (finding a corrupt source instruction required where the evidence revealed an intent on the part of the Commonwealth's chief witness to aid in the commission of a robbery); Commonwealth v. Bricker, 525 Pa. 362, 370-75 , 581 A.2d 147, 150-53 (1990)(holding that the evidence established that the Commonwealth's chief witness, testifying pursuant to a plea agreement and as a participant in the federal witness protection program, was a co-conspirator to a murder).