Commonwealth v. Tedford

• Decision Date: 22 April 2020
• Docket Number: No. 773 CAP,773 CAP
• Citation: 228 A.3d 891
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Donald Mitchell TEDFORD, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

228 A.3d 891

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee

v.Donald Mitchell TEDFORD, Appellant

No. 773 CAP

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted: December 24, 2019

Decided: April 22, 2020

Bruce Antoni Antkowiak, Saint Vincent College, Adam Byron Cogan, Greensburg, for Appellant.

Ronald Eisenberg, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, William Ross Stoycos, State College, for Appellee.

SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE DONOHUE

In this capital case, Appellant Donald Mitchell Tedford ("Tedford") was convicted of first-degree murder and rape on February 6, 1987. He appeals from the order of the lower court dismissing a petition for relief (his second) filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 - 9546 ("PCRA"), on December 2, 2014, as amended by a counseled petition on May 5, 2015, and a supplemental petition filed on June 9, 2015. In connection with his initial filings, Tedford sought wholesale discovery of the prosecution's entire file, but the PCRA court concluded that the petition (as amended) was not timely filed. Tedford also appeals the PCRA court's order denying his supplemental PCRA petition, in which he requested discovery, an evidentiary hearing, and/or a new trial based upon the admission of expert testimony presented at trial related to microscopic hair analysis. The PCRA court concluded that pursuant to Commonwealth v. Chmiel , 643 Pa. 216, 173 A.3d 617 (2017), it had jurisdiction to consider the merits of his newly discovered facts claims pursuant to Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) of the PCRA. The PCRA court determined, however, that Tedford had not asserted a meritorious claim in accordance with section 9543(a)(2)(vi) of the PCRA. Order of Court Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), 4/12/2019, at 27. For the reasons set forth hereinbelow, we affirm in all respects.

This matter arises out of the murder and rape of Jeanine Revak, a twenty-two year-old woman pursuing a career in interior design.¹ In October or November 1985, she visited an interior design and decorating store in Cranberry Township, Butler County, known as "The Finishing Touch." There she met Tedford, who as an inmate at the state prison in Greensburg, had been granted work release to secure employment at The Finishing Touch. Tedford interviewed Revak, and although she was not offered employment at that time, she was encouraged by the opportunity and indicated that she would remain in touch.

On Friday, January 10, 1986, Revak did not go to work as a result of a week-long illness. During the day, her husband and friends were unsuccessful in attempts to contact her by phone. At approximately noon, a truck driver stopped at The Finishing Touch with a delivery, but the front door was locked. Tedford soon opened the door, at which time the truck driver saw a young lady in the store (who Tedford later admitted was Revak). When her husband came home from work, Revak was not at the house and there was no note explaining her absence. After other attempts to locate her failed, at about 11:30 p.m. he called The Finishing Touch. Tedford answered, identifying himself as "Don." Revak's husband asked Tedford if he remembered his wife, to which Tedford responded that he did remember her, that she was a very talented girl, but that he had not seen her that day. The next morning, Revak's husband reported her missing to the local police. Later in the day, he found her car parked some distance away in a shopping center parking lot. There was no trace of Revak.

At around 12:30 p.m. that same day, two brothers hunting small game in Washington County found a young woman's body along the shoulder of the road. The rigid state of the body and its discoloration led them to believe that she was dead, so they contacted the authorities. She had on a red jacket, a silk blouse, black slacks, one mesh stocking, gold earrings, a gold necklace, and a wedding band. She was not wearing shoes. When the body was turned over, it was discovered that her slacks were unfastened and the zipper was down. When the investigator checked under her blouse, he found that her bra was pushed up over her breasts. The slacks and jacket were relatively clean except for the presence of some foreign items, which were identified as blood, weeds, and thin, fiber-type material.

From January 10 to January 12, 1986, Tedford had a furlough from prison. He was scheduled to be back in his cell at 9:00 p.m. on Monday, January 13, 1986. He did not report back at that time and was thus considered to be an escapee. On Monday night, January 13, 1986, he was arrested. Pursuant to a search warrant, authorities seized samples of Tedford's head hairs, pubic hairs, blood and saliva.

At trial, the Commonwealth contended that Tedford lured Revak to meet him, took her to The Finishing Touch, and raped her there. Then, fearing that she would report him for the rape, he strangled her to death and drove her body to the woods in Washington County where he left it for the hunters to find the following day. The Commonwealth relied upon significant circumstantial evidence tying Tedford to the crimes, including that the victim had sperm and seminal fluid in her vagina and on her slacks, which laboratory testing confirmed was consistent with Tedford's blood groupings and genetic characteristics. Commonwealth v. Tedford , 598 Pa. 639, 960 A.2d 1, 10 (2008). The Commonwealth also presented the testimony of two jailhouse informants, who stated that Tedford admitted to them that he forced the victim to have sex with him and then killed her to prevent her from reporting the rape to police. Id .

Of significance to this appeal, the Commonwealth also presented the testimony of Pennsylvania State Police Criminalist Scott Ermlick. Ermlick began his testimony by indicating that he found a pubic hair on the victim's underpants and offered the following testimony with regard to this evidence:

Q. In examining the victim's clothing, did you find any hairs?

A. I found numerous hairs on her clothing specifically.

Q. Did you find any pubic hairs?

A. I found a pubic hair on the victim's underclothing, her underpants.

Q. Were you able to determine whether or not that came from her body?

A. It did not match the pubic hair samples that were supplied to me by the coroner.

Q. Did you receive pubic hair samples from the victim's husband?

A. I did.

Q. Were you able to compare them and determine whether or not he could have contributed that hair?

A. I did examine them. I did compare them and based on what my examination revealed, they are not from him.

Q. Did you receive pubic hair samples from the defendant?

A. I did.

Q. And were you able to compare those?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. What was the result?

A. That based on my examination I found the hair from the victim's panties to be consistent with the hair from the defendant.

Q. When you say consistent, that is not a positive match, is it?

A. No. There's really no way that you can take a hair and say that it came from one individual and one individual only unless you have some really unique characteristics, which would maybe say like a female who would dye her hair one color and then the next day dye it a different color, then you would end up with two or three different dye lines that could be measured from the root. When you're dealing with undyed hair, the best that you can do is say it is consistent with, based upon the microscopic analysis of that hair, the questioned hair and the suspect of comparison hair.

Q. When you found the pubic hair type and blood type

were consistent, are these two things that go together would you expect when you see the one you would see the other?

A. No sir. They are independent factors.

Q. So the fact that he has similar blood does not mean that he has similar pubic hair or vice versa?

A. That is correct. Each test should be taken as an independent test.

N.T., 2/3/1987, at 229-30.

Ermlick also testified regarding various synthetic fibers found on the victim. As this Court explained in its opinion on direct appeal,

[Tedford]'s ski sweater, removed from [his] car pursuant to a search to which he consented was introduced into evidence. Red synthetic fibers removed from the victim's blouse and red synthetic fibers removed from [Tedford]'s ski sweater were found to have the same microscopic characteristics. The ultimate source of those fibers could not be determined. Certain polyprophyrin fibers obtained from the victim's jacket and from carpet backing from The Finishing Touch were microscopically examined and it was determined that they matched. Certain vegetable fibers found on the victim's clothing were microscopically examined and compared with vegetable fibers taken from The Finishing Touch and it was determined that they were similar. The clothing of the victim was loaded with lint and was not in a condition that you would expect a person to wear. The victim's house and wardrobe were examined and it was determined that the fibers found on her clothing could not have come from her home or wardrobe. Pennsylvania State Police Criminalist Scott Ermlick testified that it is unusual to find three different types of foreign fibers on a victim's clothing.

He testified that, contrary to popular belief, it is not very common to find a cross transfer of fibers and hairs.

Tedford , 567 A.2d at 616.

Tedford, testifying on his own behalf, stated that he met Revak in late October or early November, 1985 when she came to The Finishing Touch in search of a job. Tedford stated that he and Revak formed a friendship and that she would stop by the store once or twice a week. According to Tedford, he and Revak eventually developed a close intimate relationship and that once a week they would have sexual intercourse on the floor of his office at The Finishing Touch. Tedford testified that just before noon on Friday, January 10, 1986, Revak unexpectedly walked into The Finishing Touch store to see him. He testified that shortly after Revak arrived, a delivery man made a...