Commonwealth v. Leaner
202 A.3d 749 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant’s conduct is the legal cause of a victim’s death if it is a direct and substantial factor in bringing about the death, even if a significant amount of time passes and the victim has pre-existing medical conditions, so long as the death is a natural and foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions.
Facts:
- On September 14, 2009, Thomas McNeil and his associate, Wallace Tabron, were moving furniture for McNeil's aunt.
- On the morning of September 15, 2009, McNeil pulled over the rental truck he was driving to speak with two men, one of whom was Eric L.L. Leaner.
- During an attempted robbery, Leaner, wearing an orange hoodie, struck the 61-year-old McNeil in the head with a crowbar.
- After McNeil fell to the ground, Leaner went through his pockets.
- Tabron exited the truck, grabbed a crowbar, and waved it at Leaner and his associate, who then fled as a police cruiser approached.
- McNeil sustained severe injuries, including skull fractures and a subdural hematoma, which required emergency surgery and left him neurologically devastated, unable to sit, move, speak, or care for himself.
- McNeil required continuous medical care in various facilities following the assault.
- On January 17, 2010, 124 days after the assault, Thomas McNeil died from complications of the blunt head trauma he had sustained.
Procedural Posture:
- Eric L.L. Leaner was arrested in connection with the murder of Thomas McNeil.
- A jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County convicted Leaner of second-degree murder, robbery, and possession of an instrument of crime.
- On April 4, 2014, the trial court sentenced Leaner to life in prison.
- Leaner's direct appeal rights were reinstated via a Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition.
- Leaner filed a counseled appeal 'nunc pro tunc' to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, raising eleven issues for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's act of striking a victim in the head with a crowbar constitute the legal cause of death for a second-degree murder conviction when the victim dies 124 days later and had significant pre-existing medical conditions?
Opinions:
Majority - Stevens, P.J.E.
Yes, a defendant's act constitutes the legal cause of death under these circumstances. To establish criminal causation, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant's conduct was a direct and substantial factor in producing the death and that the result was not so remote or attenuated that it would be unfair to impose criminal liability. The court applied a two-part test from Commonwealth v. Rementer, finding first that McNeil would not have died but for Leaner's assault. Second, the court determined that McNeil's death was a natural and foreseeable consequence of being struck in the head with a crowbar. Expert medical testimony established that despite pre-existing conditions, McNeil was in functional health before the attack, and the assault directly caused the 'neurologically devastating' state from which he never recovered, leading to his death. The 124-day time lapse and the need for medical intervention did not break the chain of causation.
Concurring - Bowes, J.
Yes, the conviction should be affirmed, but for partially different reasons. The Confrontation Clause was violated when the trial court permitted Dr. Collins to testify about the findings of an autopsy report prepared by the non-testifying Dr. Blanchard. However, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Dr. Collins also based his independent opinion on his review of non-testimonial medical treatment records, which were themselves sufficient to establish the chain of causation leading to the victim's death. Additionally, the appellant's speedy trial claim under Rule 600 was not preserved for appeal because it was filed pro se while he was represented by counsel, rendering the motion a legal nullity.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the principle of legal causation in homicide cases, emphasizing that neither a significant time delay nor the victim's pre-existing frailties will sever causation if the defendant's act remains a 'direct and substantial factor' in the death. It serves as a strong precedent against defendants arguing that intervening medical care or a long period of decline breaks the causal chain. The case also provides a practical application of the evolving Confrontation Clause jurisprudence, illustrating how the testimony of a substitute medical expert can be deemed admissible if they form and testify to an 'independent opinion' based on a review of both testimonial (autopsy reports) and non-testimonial (medical records, photos) evidence.
