Com. v. Meade, B.

J-S30043-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
BRANDON MEADE :
:
Appellant : No. 1961 EDA 2021
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered September 9, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0011126-2015
BEFORE: STABILE, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 23, 2022
Brandon Meade (Meade) appeals from the order entered in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (PCRA court) denying his petition filed
pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. He
alleges the PCRA court erred in denying his petition where trial counsel was
ineffective. We affirm.
We take the following factual background and procedural history from
this Court’s June 18, 2018 memorandum opinion in Meade’s direct appeal, the
PCRA court’s November 24, 2021 opinion, and our independent review of the
record.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S30043-22
I.
On November 6, 2015, the Commonwealth filed an Information charging
Meade with first-degree murder and possessing an instrument of crime (PIC)1
for fatally shooting his paramour, Agatha Hall (the decedent), on August 31,
2015. The case proceeded to trial on September 21, 2016.
The Commonwealth’s theory of the case was that Meade “shot the
decedent in a fit of jealous rage after discovering that she had contact with
her former boyfriend. Thereafter, [Meade] was exiting the apartment when
he came upon the decedent’s roommate and her boyfriend, whereupon he
returned and fired a second shot into the wall and staged a suicide.” (PCRA
Court Opinion, 11/24/21, at 7). Meade’s “position was that the decedent was
depressed as a result of her mother’s death months earlier and committed
suicide with [his] gun.” (Id.).
A.
This Court thoroughly set forth the facts adduced at trial in our June 18,
2018 memorandum opinion as follows:
Agatha Badio is the decedent’s aunt. … Badio had spoken
with the decedent for the last time a few days before her murder
and testified that she was planning to come to Minnesota to visit
her family in the week following her death. According to Badio,
the decedent was happy the last time she spoke to her and in the
months preceding her murder. [On cross-examination, she
agreed the decedent was depressed over the death of her mother
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(a) and 907(a), respectively.
-2-
J-S30043-22
because, “[w]ho wouldn’t be[,]” but clarified on re-direct that the
decedent was not depressed, and in fact seemed happy.]
Robert Lay testified that he is a registered coordinator at
Temple University. He was a friend of the decedent. They met in
the fall of 2014 and commenced a sexual relationship which lasted
for that semester and after which they remained friends. Lay
described the decedent as “very bubbly ... always smiling, always
joking.” After that semester, during the winter break, the
decedent had gone to Australia to see her mother, who was ill.
Her mother passed away during the trip. Lay kept in touch with
the decedent while she was in Australia and testified that,
although she was upset about her mother’s death, she was also
relieved that her mother’s illness was over and was “back to her
bubbly state” upon returning from the trip. Lay added that the
decedent did not want to continue seeing him after the trip
because she had entered into a relationship with someone else.
Lay testified that they did have one more sexual encounter
about a month after she started this new relationship. Two or
three days after this encounter, he received a frantic phone call
from the decedent. She sounded scared and worried; she told
him that her boyfriend had gone through her text messages, and
she kept asking if her boyfriend had tried to contact him. The
second-to-last phone call between Lay and the decedent took
place at the end of June, 2015. At the time of the phone call, the
decedent seemed very happy and she said she was doing very
well. Their final phone call was a Sunday night in late August,
2015. … She initially seemed calm but then started whispering
“call you back, call you back” and gave Lay the impression that
she was worried, scared, and that there was something wrong
before she hung up. After this phone call, he received a phone
call from the decedent’s number but it was a man who was yelling
at him, cursing, and threatening him. … [He heard the decedent
yell not to say anything and then exhale as if the wind had been
knocked out of her.] The following day, upon hearing that the
decedent had committed suicide, Lay went to Temple Police
Station and gave them a statement because he did not think the
decedent had killed herself.
Abigail Osei–Tutu was the decedent’s roommate [since]
August of 2014. … She [] testified that … the condition of the
decedent’s bedroom as shown in the photographs taken of the
scene was not how the decedent kept it; rather, it was much too
-3-
J-S30043-22
messy. … She had never noticed a bullet hole in the decedent’s
bedroom wall prior to the murder. Osei–Tutu knew [Meade] as
the decedent’s boyfriend, whom the decedent had started dating
upon returning from Australia in the winter of 2015.
Osei–Tutu testified that the decedent had been considering
marrying a friend so that he would not lose his visa, but after the
decedent spoke to [Meade] about it on the phone, the decedent
spent the rest of the evening crying and very upset. [S]he went
to her bed and put about five over-the-counter (i.e. Tylenol, etc.)
painkillers in her mouth and then spit them right back out. A
couple of days after this incident, the decedent seemed normal to
Osei–Tutu and was excited about the start of the fall semester.
Osei–Tutu testified that on August 31, 2015, she and her
boyfriend, Daniel Boateng, were returning to her apartment …
when they encountered [Meade] opening the door to the vestibule
(from the hallway), apparently on his way out of the building. He
appeared startled, did not say anything to Osei–Tutu or her
boyfriend, turned around, and started banging on the decedent’s
bedroom door [angrily demanding his gun that he said he left
behind.] Osei–Tutu and Boateng went to the former’s room and
sat on her bed. Within a few seconds, [Meade] stopped banging
on the door and, a few seconds after that, Osei–Tutu and Boateng
heard a gunshot. After the gunshot Osei–Tutu testified that she
heard [Meade] start yelling “Why did she do that? Why did she
do that? Oh my god!”
After the gunshot, … [Meade] then came into [Osei-Tutu]’s
room, still yelling, … and Osei–Tutu [and Boeteng] ran out of the
apartment. ... Osei–Tutu called the police to report [the shooting.
She] went to the police station with the police that morning and
gave a statement, which she reviewed and signed. She gave an
additional two statements to homicide detectives: one on
September 9, 2015 and another on May 3, 2016.
Daniel Boateng testified that he is the boyfriend of Abigail
Osei–Tutu. He described the decedent as a very easy-going and
joyful person. ... Boateng testified [consistently with Osei-Tutu
about the events of the night of August 31, 2015, adding only that
he heard a slight murmur (the gender of which he could not
determine) after Meade pounded on the decedent’s door
-4-
J-S30043-22
demanding his gun,2 and that after the shooting, he saw that
Meade had blood stains at the top of his shirt. When Boateng left
the room, Meade] was flailing on Osei–Tutu’s bed saying: “I can’t
believe she did that to herself!”
Giselle Spencer, a close friend of the decedent, testified that
she had known the decedent for three years. … The decedent
continuously told Spencer that [Meade] had a temper and did not
trust her. On May 29, 2015, the decedent called her sounding
hysterical. The decedent told her that [Meade] had found
messages on her phone from another male and that they had had
a big fight, after which [Meade] had slammed her against a wall.
...
Spencer further testified that, in the summer of 2015, she
went to the mall with the decedent and [Meade]. … Two males
came out of a store and made flirtatious remarks directed at the
decedent. [Meade] walked up and lifted his shirt revealing a gun
to the males. The decedent asked Spencer to go get [Meade]
away from the males because he had a bad temper.
Spencer testified that [when she] hung out with the
decedent about a week before she was murdered[,] the decedent
was happy and excited about starting school the following week
and finishing college.
* * *
[Philadelphia Police] Officer Market testified that when he
entered the apartment [minutes after the incident] there were
clothes and debris scattered around. He also noticed that a mirror
on the[bedroom] wall was tilted. [In the bedroom,] [h]e pulled
an Ikea-style dresser off of the decedent and found her in a fetal
position …. She was bleeding profusely from a wound on her
forehead[.] … Officer Market found a gun with blood on it laying
next to the decedent.
Officer Market testified that … [h]e found one fired cartridge
casing (FCC) in the middle of the bed among some clothes and
____________________________________________
2 Meade’s counsel impeached Ms. Osei-Tutu and Boateng with prior conflicting
statements made to the police about whether they heard another voice before
the gunshot. (See N.T. Trial, 9/22/16, at 73-74, 97-98, 137-38, 146-47).]
-5-
J-S30043-22
noticed a bullet hole in the wall about four feet above the bed.
When [Meade] was brought to the district precinct for questioning,
he continued to act hysterical and rolled on the floor in the
hallway.
* * *
Officer Willie Roundtree testified that he and his partner,
Officer [Jonathan] Mangual, responded to a police radio call at
12:35 a.m. on the morning of August 31, 2015. Officer Roundtree
testified that when he arrived on the scene, [Meade] was pacing
back and forth in the back yard of the property and tried to walk
away when approached by Officers Roundtree and Mangual. …
Officer Roundtree then asked if the decedent was suicidal before
and [Meade] said: “No, she never was. Am I able to leave? Am
I able to leave? That was my baby. Oh my God, oh my God.” …
[Officer Roundtree testified that he placed Meade in the
squad car, and Officer Mangual called their supervisor to ask for
clarification as to where to take [him]. The Assistant District
Attorney (A.D.A.) asked Officer Roundtree to “tell us what you
heard your partner sitting down next to you say into the phone.”
Officer Roundtree responded, “my partner said, sergeant, we are
on our way to homicide. I don’t believe this guy. He’s not crying.”
(N.T. Trial, 9/22/2016 at 160). When Meade’s trial counsel
objected to this testimony on the grounds of hearsay, the
objection was overruled. (See id. at 158-62).]
* * *
Dr. Sam Gulino, the Chief Medical Examiner for the City of
Philadelphia, testified that … [a]fter reviewing all of the files and
photographs related to the autopsy of the decedent, … within a
reasonable degree of scientific certainty, [the decedent’s] cause
of death was a gunshot wound to the head and her manner of
death was homicide. … Dr. Gulino testified that the gun that fired
the bullet that killed the decedent was fired at a distance of one
to three feet from the decedent’s head. … Dr. Gulino testified that
none of the features of the decedent’s case were typical of a
suicide and that suicidal gunshot wounds are almost always
contact wounds, which this was not.
Ms. Ann Marie Barnes, Firearms Examiner with the
Philadelphia Police Department, testified that … [b]ased upon her
-6-
J-S30043-22
microscopic investigations, [she] determined that the bullet
fragments found in the decedent’s skull and the FCC found on the
decedent’s bed were fired from [Meade]’s 9mm Ruger gun. … The
shot that killed the decedent was fired from a distance of fifteen
(15) to twenty-two (22) inches from her head.
Ms. Barnes testified that [i]f [Meade] was standing above
the decedent when he fired the gun at her, the FCC would have
likely discharged onto the bed, which is where it was found. Ms.
Barnes took distance determination test shots with [Meade’s]
9mm Ruger gun at distances of 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20,
22, and 24 inches in order to determine the distance of the muzzle
of the gun from the decedent. … The 18 to 22 inch distance
determination range was the closet match to the stippling pattern
on the decedent’s head. Ms. Barnes testified that, after examining
the body of the decedent, she determined that the farthest
distance the decedent could have possibly held the muzzle of the
gun from her head, when considering the decedent’s arm length,
was between 13.75 and 14 inches.
(Commonwealth v. Meade, 2018 WL 3015358, unpublished memorandum,
at *1-*6 (Pa. Super. filed June 18, 2018) (record citation omitted)).
On September 27, 2016, the jury convicted Meade of first-degree
murder and PIC. The court sentenced him that day to the mandatory term of
life without the possibility of parole for the first-degree murder conviction and
imposed no further penalty for PIC. This Court affirmed the judgment of
sentence3 on June 18, 2018, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his
petition for allowance of appeal. (See Commonwealth v. Meade, 193 A.3d
____________________________________________3 Meade challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence and the
admission of prior bad acts evidence. He maintained, in part, that the verdict
was against the weight of the evidence because there was evidence of the
decedent’s depressed state due to her mother’s death. However, the issue
was waived for his failure to preserve it.
-7-
J-S30043-22
1085 (Pa. Super. filed June 18, 2018) (unpublished memorandum), appeal
denied, 199 A.3d 331 (Pa. 2018)).
Meade filed a counseled PCRA petition on March 3, 2020, an amended
petition on October 15, 2020, and a supplemental petition on November 9,
2020. He claimed, in pertinent part, that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing: (1) to argue that Officer Roundtree’s testimony about Officer
Mangual’s statement that he did not believe Meade was inadmissible as
improper credibility evidence; (2) to introduce the decedent’s Facebook posts
or subpoena family and friends she confided in through the platform because
it would have supported the defense theory that she was suicidal; and (3) to
call Meade’s mother, Janice Meade, to testify about the decedent’s statements
that she was suicidal.
Appended to the amended petition was a “voluminous set of records”
recovered from the decedent’s Facebook account, including messages
between the decedent and various friends and family members in which she
expressed “varying degrees of sadness and grief regarding the death of her
mother …, as well as stress and frustration brought on by financial difficulties.”
(PCRA Court Opinion, 11/24/21, at 11); (see Amended PCRA Petition,
10/15/20, at 5-13, Exhibit A, RR 33a-119a).4 Also attached was
____________________________________________
4 We refer to the reproduced record for ease of reference because the
Facebook records are nearly ninety pages long.
-8-
J-S30043-22
correspondence from Meade’s brother, Kyle Gibson, in which he stated that
he saw the decedent approximately a week before her death and that her
affect was “blank” and she “wasn’t mentally present,” which was
uncharacteristic. (See Amended PCRA Petition, at Exhibit D). The
supplemental PCRA petition attached a transcript of PCRA counsel’s email to
Janice Meade in which he asked her a series of questions to which she provided
answers. Specifically, she said that she told trial counsel that she received a
text from the decedent’s cousin that the decedent was suicidal, and that she
had spoken to the decedent approximately a week before her death and that
she was emotional over the death of her mother and cousin, 5 financial issues
and college. Ms. Meade stated that in response to the decedent’s concerns,
she told her she needed to go to school to have something to keep her mind
busy and gave her information about a suicide hotline. (See PCRA Petition
Supplement, 11/09/28, at Attachment ¶¶ 6-7, 12-13).
On July 21, 2021, the court issued Rule 907 notice of its intent to dismiss
Meade’s PCRA petition without a hearing. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 207(1). On
September 9, 2021, the PCRA court dismissed the petition. Meade timely
appealed and filed a court-ordered statement of errors. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b).
____________________________________________
5 It is not clear who the cousin was.
-9-
J-S30043-22
On appeal, Meade argues that the PCRA court erred in dismissing his
petition where trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing “to object to
improper and prejudicial testimony” by Officer Roundtree; (2) failing “to
present favorable defense evidence” in the form of Facebook records and
testimony of the decedent’s friends and family identified therein; and (3)
failing “to call a [Meade’s mother, Janice Meade, as a] favorable defense
[witness].” (Meade’s Brief, at 2).6
II.
A.
In considering an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we observe
first that counsel is presumed effective and that a petitioner bears the burden
to prove otherwise. See Commonwealth v. Fears, 86 A.3d 795, 804 (Pa.
Super. 2014). To establish an ineffectiveness claim, a defendant must prove:
(1) the underlying claim has arguable merit; (2) no reasonable
basis existed for counsel’s actions or failure to act; and (3)
[Meade] suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s error such that
there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding
would have been different absent such error.
Id. (citation omitted). “Failure to prove any prong of this test will defeat an
ineffectiveness claim.” Id.____________________________________________
6Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is whether the record
supports the court’s findings of fact and is free of legal error. See
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 852 A.2d 1197, 1198 (Pa. Super. 2004),
appeal denied, 871 A.2d 188 (Pa. 2005).
- 10 -
J-S30043-22
A reviewing court will examine the basis for counsel’s actions only if it
is first persuaded that the claim of ineffectiveness has arguable merit.
Commonwealth v. Pursell, 724 A.2d 293, 304 (Pa. 1999). For the second
prong of the standard, a party must demonstrate that counsel’s strategy was
“so unreasonable that no competent lawyer would have chosen that course of
conduct.” Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501, 541 (Pa. 2005)
(citations omitted). “A reviewing court will find an attorney’s strategy
unreasonable only if an unchosen alternative would offer a substantially
greater potential for success than that actually chosen.” Commonwealth v.
Lawrence, 165 A.3d 34, 41 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations omitted).
Finally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has consistently held that if the
party asserting the claim fails to establish the prejudice prong, the claim may
be dismissed on that basis alone without a determination of whether the party
has met the first two prongs. See Chmiel, 889 A.2d at 540. The defendant
must demonstrate that “there is a reasonable probability that the result of the
proceeding would have been different absent [counsel’s] error.”
Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345, 373 (Pa. 2011).
With these legal principles in mind, we turn to Meade’s ineffectiveness
of counsel claims.
B.
Meade first argues that trial counsel was ineffective for objecting to
Officer Roundtree’s testimony that Officer Mangual said he did not believe
- 11 -
J-S30043-22
Meade because he was not crying based on hearsay instead of as inadmissible
opinion testimony about his credibility. (See Meade’s Brief, at 8). He
maintains that trial counsel did not have a reasonable basis where the
testimony unduly prejudiced him. (See id. at 8-11).
In support of this claim, Meade relies in large part on Commonwealth
v. McClure, 144 A.3d 970 (Pa. Super. 2016) for the proposition that, “[i]t is
an encroachment upon the province of the jury to permit admission of [a police
officer’s] testimony on the issue of the credibility of a witness.” McClure, 144
A.3d at 977 (citation omitted); (see Meade’s Brief, at 8-11). However,
McClure is procedurally and factually distinguishable.
In Commonwealth v. R.L.J., 241 A.3d 362 (Pa. Super. filed Oct. 2,
2020) (unpublished memorandum),7 a PCRA appeal, we distinguished
McClure, in part, because it “was decided in the context of a direct appeal,
rather in a collateral context addressing any strategic decisions made by trial
counsel.” R.L.J., 241 A.3d at *12. We observed that the court had instructed
the jury that it was within their province to weigh the evidence and assess
credibility and considered the “multitude of evidence” presented by the
Commonwealth before concluding that petitioner had failed to establish he
____________________________________________
7We may rely on unpublished decisions filed after May 1, 2019, as persuasive
authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 126.
- 12 -
J-S30043-22
was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to object to the admission of the
officer’s opinions regarding petitioner’s credibility. See id.Similarly, here, the trial court repeatedly instructed the jury that it was
its duty to assess credibility and provided a lengthy discussion about witness
credibility and the factors it could consider when evaluating the evidence.
(See N.T. Trial, 9/20/16, at 10); (N.T. Trial, 9/27/16, at 3-4, 11-16, 130-31,
133-34). Furthermore, the Commonwealth presented a “multitude of
evidence” negating suicide and proving that Meade murdered the decedent in
a jealous rage, in the form of forensic evidence and witness testimony about
the decedent’s demeanor and his violent history towards her.
Specifically, Mr. Lay, Ms. Spencer, Ms. Osei-Tutu, Mr. Boateng and Ms.
Badio all testified about the decedent’s sunny, happy disposition and her plans
for the future. (See N.T. Trial, 9/21/16, at 80, 82-83, 181-82, 190); (N.T.
Trial, 9/22/16, at 21-22, 105, 231). They testified that although she was sad
at the passing of her mother in January 2015, she also was relieved and
returned to her cheerful disposition soon thereafter. (See N.T. Trial, 9/21/16,
at 82-83, 179, 181-82). Ms. Spencer testified about witnessing Meade’s
jealous, violent demeanor toward decedent and the decedent’s fear of him.
(See N.T. Trial, 9/22/16, at 216-17, 220-229). The decedent contacted Mr.
Lay with concerns about Meade’s anger and jealousy and her fear. In the final
call between them on the night of the murder, she sounded afraid, and Meade
screamed, cursed and threatened him before Mr. Lay heard the decedent yell
- 13 -
J-S30043-22
for him not to say anything and sharply exhale before the line went dead.
(See N.T. Trial, 9/21/16, at 184-85, 193-97, 183-203). Although Ms. Osei-
Tutu testified that the decedent was distraught after an argument with Meade
and that she took a handful of Tylenol pills, she immediately spit them out
and she was fine thereafter, excited about school and graduation. (See N.T.
Trial, 9/22/16, at 18-22).
Ms. Osei-Tutu and Mr. Boateng testified about Meade’s suspicious
behavior on the night in question. (See id. at 26-28, 30, 55-57, 73-74, 110).
They testified that they only heard one shot, although police found evidence
of two bullets in the decedent’s room. (See N.T. Trial, 9/21/16, at 252-53,
256-57). Officers Market and Roundtree testified about Meade’s suspicious
behavior at the scene, acting hysterical without tears and repeatedly asking
to retrieve his gun, even attempting to crawl through Officer Waymack’s legs
while she was in the doorway. (See id. at 98, 101-02); (N.T. Trial, 9/22/16,
at 157-62; 184).
Chief Medical Examiner Gulino testified to a reasonable degree of
scientific certainty that the decedent was murdered based on the location of
the entrance wound and distance from which the bullet was fired. (See N.T.
Trial, 9/23/16, 12-13, 20-22, 33-34). Multiple witnesses testified about the
forensic evidence and the fact that it supported a conclusion that Meade shot
the gun two times from approximately eighteen to twenty inches away, not
that the decedent shot herself based on the stippling pattern to her head, the
- 14 -
J-S30043-22
distance and angle from which the gun would have to have been shot, and the
location of the FCC on her bed. (See N.T. Trial, 9/21/16, at 129, 139-40);
(N.T. Trial, 9/23/16, at 33, 89-91, 103-05); (N.T. Trial, 9/26/16 at 20-26).
Based on the “multitude of evidence” presented by the Commonwealth,
in addition to the trial court’s instruction to the jury that it was within their
province to weigh the evidence and assess credibility, the record supports the
PCRA court’s conclusion that Meade is unable to prove he was prejudiced by
trial counsel’s failure to object to Officer Roundtree’s passing reference and,
thus, his ineffectiveness of counsel claim fails. R.L.J., 241 A.3d at *12.
C.
In his next two issues Meade claims that the court erred in denying his
PCRA petition because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to use the
decedent’s Facebook records, subpoena her friends and family identified
therein or call Meade’s mother, Janice Meade, to testify that the decedent told
her in the days before her death that she did not want to live anymore. He
maintains this evidence would have established that the decedent was suicidal
for weeks before her death and, therefore, he did not murder her. (See
Meade’s Brief, at 12-19).
The PCRA court explains that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing
to introduce this cumulative evidence and Meade was not prejudiced where
there was more than sufficient evidence to convict him. (See PCRA Ct. Op.,
at 11, 13). We discern no abuse of discretion.
- 15 -
J-S30043-22
It is long settled that “[t]rial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for
failing to present additional evidence cumulative of that already presented.”
Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601, 634 (Pa. 2015). Further:
As it specifically relates to a claim for ineffectiveness for the
failure to call a witness, the petitioner must establish that (1) the
witness existed; (2) the witness was available to testify for the
defense; (3) counsel knew of, or should have known of, the
existence of the witness; (4) the witness was willing to testify for
the defense; and (5) the absence of the testimony of the witness
was so prejudicial as to have denied the defendant a fair trial. …
Generally, where matters of strategy and tactics are concerned,
counsel’s assistance is deemed constitutionally effective if he
chose a particular course that had some reasonable basis
designed to effectuate his client’s interests. A claim of
ineffectiveness generally cannot succeed through comparing, in
hindsight, the trial strategy employed with alternatives not
pursued.
Commonwealth v. Weimer, 167 A.3d 78, 92 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations,
quotations marks, brackets and emphasis omitted).8
In Janice Meade’s written response to questions from PCRA counsel
attached to the supplemental PCRA petition, she represented, in pertinent
part, that she told trial counsel that (1) she spoke to the decedent’s cousin,
who told her that the decedent had texted that she wanted to kill herself; and
____________________________________________
8 Meade failed to provide affidavits from the decedent’s friends and family or
from his mother (or his brother) in which they stated that they were willing
and able to testify on his behalf. See Weimer, 167 A.3d at 92
(“Ineffectiveness for failing to call a witness will not be found where a
defendant fails to provide affidavits from the alleged witnesses indicating
availability and willingness to cooperate with the defense.”). However, the
PCRA court denied these issues on its merits and, therefore, we will review
the merits of these claims.
- 16 -
J-S30043-22
(2) that she saw the decedent days before the murder and that she gave her
information on suicide hotlines and told her she needed to get back to school
to take her mind off the situation of her mother’s death. (See Supplemental
PCRA Petition, 11/09/20, at attachment ¶¶ 6-8, 12).
Regarding the Facebook records, we note that contrary to Meade’s claim
that both they and the unpresented testimony about them would have
demonstrated that the decedent was “tragically suicidal,” our review confirms
that the records show the decedent communicating the normal grief
experienced by an individual who recently experienced a close death in the
family and her friends and family offering affection and emotional support.
(See R.R. 46, 62, 95). In fact, the communications show that the decedent
was making plans for the future, including returning to college the following
week, being excited for her upcoming graduation and planning to attend law
school. (See R.R. 38, 93-94).
The jury was aware that the decedent was upset over her mother
passing away in January 2015. (See N.T. Trial, 9/21/15, at 182). Trial
counsel cross-examined the decedent’s aunt about the alleged depression this
caused for the decedent. (See id. at 82-83). Mr. Lay testified about the
decedent’s emotional state due to her mother’s illness. (See id. at 181-82).
Ms. Osei-Tutu testified that one week before the murder, she witnessed the
- 17 -
J-S30043-22
decedent swallow several over-the-counter pain pills (described as Tylenol)
before quickly spitting them back out.9 (See N.T. Trial, 9/22/16, at 18-19).
Therefore, Janice Meade’s testimony on behalf of her son and the
Facebook records to this affect, although potentially relevant, were merely
cumulative, and counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to introduce
cumulative evidence. See Mason, 130 A.3d at 634. Additionally, as detailed
in section IIB above, the physical and scientific evidence and testimony of the
decedent’s friends and aunt overwhelmingly established that her death was
not a suicide. Therefore, even if this testimony and evidence was not
cumulative, Meade was not prejudiced by trial counsel’s decision not to pursue
this strategy, and we will not compare, in hindsight, this decision not to
produce voluminous Facebook records, call Meade’s mother to testify or
subpoena the decedent’s friends and family with alternatives not pursued.
Counsel’s trial strategy was not so prejudicial as to deny Meade a fair trial.
See Weimer, 167 A.3d at 92. He is due no relief.
Order affirmed.
____________________________________________
9The record reflects this incident was the result of an argument with Meade,
not due to the decedent’s sadness over her mother’s passing.
- 18 -
J-S30043-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/23/2022
- 19 -