Commonwealth v. Housman

Decision Date26 March 2020
Docket NumberNo. 765 CAP, No. 766 CAP,765 CAP
Citation226 A.3d 1249
Parties COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. William Howard HOUSMAN, Appellee Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. William Howard Housman, Appellant
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court
OPINION

JUSTICE TODD

Before our Court in this capital case are the cross-appeals of the Commonwealth, which has been designated as the appellant in this matter, and William H. Housman, designated as the appellee, from the order of the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas granting Housman's petition for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 et seq. , in the form of a new penalty trial, but denying him guilt phase relief.1 After careful review, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises from the October 2000 murder of Leslie White, the facts of which were summarized by this Court on Housman's direct appeal:

Shortly after graduating from high school, Leslie White, the victim, met [Housman] when she began working at the Wal-Mart photo shop in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County. They began a romantic relationship; however, [Housman] was already involved in a romantic relationship with co-defendant Beth Ann Markman, and had been living with her for nearly two years.
Markman discovered e-mails between White and [Housman], revealing their affair. Markman told [Housman] to end his relationship with White, and told several friends and co-workers she intended to " ‘kick [White's] ass.’ " Markman's co-workers noticed bruising around her eyes and neck, which she attributed to fights with [Housman] over the e-mails. On one occasion, Markman called Wal-Mart to speak with White, which left White scared and crying. Markman also visited the store once, looking for White, but left without incident. Markman told a friend "if she ever got her hands on [White], she was going to kill her." She told her probation officer, Nicole Gutshall, she caught [Housman] cheating on her, and if she caught him cheating again, she would kill the girl.
[Housman] did not terminate his relationship with White. [Housman] and Markman made plans to move to Virginia for a fresh start. However, Markman became suspicious that [Housman] had not ended his relationship with White. Markman drove [Housman] in her car to a local Sheetz store, where [Housman] used a pay phone to call White at Wal-Mart. He falsely told White his father died, and asked her to come to console him. He told her Markman was out of town. Various Wal-Mart employees testified White received this call from [Housman], and she told her co-workers [Housman's] father died and she was leaving work early to console him.
When White arrived at the trailer where [Housman] and Markman lived, [Housman] talked with her in the living room, while Markman hid in the bedroom until, according to [Markman's] subsequent confession and trial testimony, she heard a thump and White cried out because [Housman] hit her hand with a hammer. Then [Housman] and Markman subdued White and tied her hands and feet with speaker wire, shoved a large piece of red cloth in her mouth, and used another piece of cloth to tie a tight gag around her mouth. With White bound, Markman and [Housman] stepped outside to smoke cigarettes and discuss their next move. Upon reentering the trailer, Markman held White down while [Housman] strangled her with speaker wire and the crook of his arm, killing her. During the struggle, White scratched Markman's neck. White died of asphyxiation

caused by strangulation and the rag stuffed into her mouth.

After White died, Markman wrapped White's body in a tent and placed it in the back of White's Jeep. The couple then fled to Virginia. Markman drove her car and [Housman] drove White's Jeep - carrying White's body. In Virginia, they drove to a remote piece of land owned by [Housman's] mother, then placed White's body in the trunk of an abandoned car. They discarded White's personal effects, except for her camera, which they intended to sell.

[Housman] and Markman remained in Virginia for several days, staying with friends and [Housman's] father. [Housman] continued to drive White's Jeep, which he held out as his own. While staying with Larry Overstreet and Kimberly Stultz, Markman corroborated [Housman's] story that they bought the Jeep from Markman's friend in Pennsylvania. At the Overstreet residence, Markman retrieved White's camera from the Jeep and they all took pictures of each other - Markman stated she bought the camera from the same woman who sold them the Jeep. Overstreet and Stultz recalled seeing scratches on Markman's neck, which Markman explained were from a dog. Stultz gave Markman the phone number of a pawn shop, and the shop owner testified he gave Markman $90 and a pawn ticket for the camera. Markman asked Stultz for cleaning supplies because "the Jeep smelled bad, like somebody had a dead animal in [it]." Markman also told Stultz that [Housman] had been seeing another woman, and if she ever met this other woman, she would "whoop her ass." Another friend, Nina Jo Fields, testified that during the couple's visit to her home, Markman told her [Housman] had been cheating on her, but that she "[didn't] have to worry about the damn bitch anymore, [because she] took care of it."

After White's parents filed a missing persons report, the authorities tracked her Jeep to Housman's location in Virginia. Deputy Brian Vaughan of the Franklin County Sheriff's office in Virginia went to the house to question [Housman] and Markman about the Jeep and White's whereabouts. When he saw the Jeep in the driveway, he ran the license plate number, which traced back to the Toyota Leasing Corporation.
Markman and [Housman] came to the door to greet Deputy Vaughan. Deputy Vaughan questioned them separately in his patrol car about the Jeep. [Housman], who was questioned first, told Deputy Vaughan he called White to ask her to console him about his dog, which had just died. [Housman] said White never arrived at the trailer, and he subsequently left with Markman for Virginia. He claimed a friend loaned him the Jeep.
Subsequently, Markman voluntarily entered the patrol car and explained to Deputy Vaughan she had only seen White once, but had had several phone conversations with her. She denied knowledge of White's whereabouts, but indicated White had a bad relationship with her parents, suggesting she had run away. Markman denied knowing how [Housman] acquired the Jeep, and admitted driving separate cars to Virginia. When Deputy Vaughan asked Markman if she was afraid of [Housman], she said she was not; rather, she admitted she had a violent temper, and [Housman] often had to restrain her from attacking him. She said she provoked [Housman] in the past and had thrown things at him, but [Housman] never assaulted or threatened her.
Following the police visit, [Housman] and Markman drove back to the property where they left White's body; there they abandoned the Jeep. Despite the couple's efforts to conceal the evidence, the police soon discovered the Jeep, as well as White's partially-decomposed body in the trunk of the abandoned car - the body was still bound, gagged, and wrapped in the canvas tent. [Housman]'s fingerprints were found on the car's trunk lid and license plate, a compact disc recovered from the Jeep, the Jeep's hatch, and other evidence recovered from the scene. Markman's fingerprints were found on a potato chip bag retrieved from the Jeep, and the Jeep's passenger door and rear hatch. Subsequent analysis revealed Markman's DNA under White's fingernails.
The Pennsylvania State Police obtained a search warrant for Markman's trailer and executed it; they found blood on a pillow and urine on the carpet in the place White was likely strangled. Police also discovered two lengths of speaker wire, red fibers on the floor, a piece of red cloth, a steak knife, red fibers on the knife, a tent storage bag, a hammer, and a stethoscope. Police arrested [Housman] and Markman on October 11, 2000, exactly one week after the murder. Police retrieved White's camera from the pawn shop and developed the film. The pictures taken at the Overstreet residence were admitted into evidence at trial; in one photograph - taken just days after [Housman] and Markman strangled White to death - Markman is laughing while [Housman] pretends to strangle her.
Following their arrest, and after receiving Miranda warnings, Markman and [Housman] waived their rights and agreed to be interviewed, providing tape-recorded statements. Each independently confessed to participating in White's murder. [Housman] admitted to killing White by strangling her, but claimed Markman instigated the murder to eliminate the source of one of their relationship problems and enable them to start their relationship anew. He maintained Markman directed him to tie White up and strangle her, and Markman forced compliance by hitting him with a hammer and then spinning the hammer in a threatening manner. After White died, Markman listened with a stethoscope to verify her death before wrapping the body in the tent.
In her police statement, Markman admitted she bound and gagged White and held her down while [Housman] strangled her. She insisted, however, [Housman] devised the plan to murder White in order to steal her Jeep, and he coerced her assistance by threatening to kill her with a hunting knife if she did not obey him. Markman also asserted [Housman] wore down her resistance by terrorizing her the night before the murder by holding a knife to her throat and forcing her to remain naked in the trailer. Markman said she only realized White was dead when White lost control of her bladder.
[Housman] moved to sever his trial from Markman's because introduction of Markman's confession to police, which was admissible against Markman, would violate his Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness against him. The trial court denied the motion. [Housman] and Markman were tried on one count each
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Flor
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • September 22, 2021
    ...court, which hears evidence and passes on the credibility of witnesses, should be given deference." Commonwealth v. Housman, ––– Pa. ––––, 226 A.3d 1249, 1260 (2020) (internal citations omitted). "A PCRA court passes on witness credibility at PCRA hearings, and its credibility determination......
  • Commonwealth v. Murray, 151 EDA 2019
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • March 19, 2021
    ...801(c). Hearsay is generally inadmissible unless it falls within an exception to the hearsay prohibition. Commonwealth v. Housman , ––– Pa. ––––, 226 A.3d 1249, 1263 (2020). Jones’ statement clearly was hearsay. We do not see any exception under which this statement was admissible; nor does......
  • Joseph v. SCI-Rockview Superintendent Mark Garman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • August 31, 2021
    ... ... failing to move for a competency hearing; (4) prosecutorial ... misconduct for failing to disclose that a Commonwealth ... witness had a prior arrest and conviction; (5) ineffective ... assistance of counsel for failing to pursue an imperfect ... victim's body.” May , 887 A.2d at 753 ... Commonwealth v. Housman , 226 A.3d 1249, 1271 (Pa ... 2020). Evidence at trial showed Joseph stabbed the victim ... more than 80 times, mostly in the back, ... ...
  • Commonwealth v. Gamble
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • June 8, 2021
    ...measured by whether there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. Commonwealth v. Housman , 226 A.3d 1249, 1260 (Pa. 2020) (citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ). A claim of ineffectiveness will be denied if the petitioner's......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT