## Facts

- Melissa Snodgrass disappeared after leaving home on September 7, 2003, and was later found dead in a Pittsburgh house basement under debris.
- The Commonwealth’s theory was that Michael Molina beat Snodgrass to death over alleged drug-related debts.
- During the missing-persons investigation, police received information suggesting Molina was holding Snodgrass against her will.
- A detective went to Molina’s home, left a card, and asked him to call.
- Molina called the detective and, before being asked substantive questions, denied involvement and said he did not know where Snodgrass was.
- The detective asked Molina to come to the police station for an interview; Molina refused.
- At trial, Molina did not testify.
- The prosecutor elicited testimony about Molina’s refusal and argued in closing that the refusal was “most telling” and should be treated as evidence of guilt.
- A jury convicted Molina of third-degree murder and related offenses.
- The Superior Court ordered a new trial, finding the Commonwealth’s substantive use of Molina’s pre-arrest noncooperation violated the right against self-incrimination.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecution may use a non-testifying defendant’s pre-arrest silence or refusal to cooperate with police as substantive evidence of guilt consistent with the federal and Pennsylvania constitutional protections against self-incrimination.
2. Whether the prosecutor’s emphasis on the defendant’s pre-arrest refusal to appear for questioning was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s order granting a new trial.
- The Court held that the Commonwealth may not use a non-testifying defendant’s pre-arrest silence or refusal to cooperate as substantive evidence of guilt.
- The Court grounded the holding in Article I, § 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, noting that federal law on the precise question was unsettled.
- The Court concluded the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the Commonwealth’s explicit argument urging the jury to infer guilt from the refusal.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pa. Const. art. I, § 9, the Commonwealth may not use a non-testifying defendant’s pre-arrest silence or refusal to cooperate with police as substantive evidence of guilt.
- Prosecutorial argument inviting the jury to treat protected silence/noncooperation as affirmative proof of guilt violates the state constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.
- The decision addressed substantive use against a non-testifying defendant, not impeachment based on silence after a defendant testifies.
- When the prosecution highlights such silence as a key indicator of guilt, the resulting constitutional error may require a new trial absent proof that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered a new trial because the Commonwealth used Molina’s pre-arrest refusal to come to the station for questioning as substantive evidence of guilt, violating the self-incrimination protection of Article I, § 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the error was not harmless.


Commonwealth v. Molina, 104 A.3d 430 (Pa. 2014)