## Facts

- Ernest Potts’s apartment was burglarized, and marijuana, jewelry, and cash were stolen; David Owens told Potts that Michael Cunerd committed the burglary.
- Two days before the killing, a friend, William Dales, testified that Potts said he was going to kill Cunerd because of the burglary.
- On March 17, 1980, Potts and Owens drove together to find Cunerd; Potts asked Cunerd to get into Potts’s car, and Cunerd complied.
- Potts drove Cunerd and Owens to an isolated area known as “the Meadows” while Potts repeatedly questioned Cunerd about the burglary and Cunerd denied involvement.
- Owens had a knife with a seven-inch blade; Potts carried a pen-gun and later admitted he knew Owens was armed when he drove Cunerd to the Meadows.
- At the Meadows, Potts ordered Cunerd out of the car and initiated a confrontation; Cunerd ran, and Owens chased, caught, and repeatedly stabbed Cunerd, killing him.
- Potts claimed he stood about 30 feet away and watched; after the stabbing, Potts told Owens to check Cunerd’s pockets, and both fled.
- Owens warned Potts that if anything happened, Potts should claim he knew nothing.
- Potts was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder on an accomplice-liability theory and sentenced to life imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, largely circumstantial, was sufficient to prove Potts had the specific intent to kill and aided or agreed to aid Owens, supporting first-degree murder as an accomplice.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the Commonwealth proceeding on an accomplice-liability theory.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve objections to admission of prior-bad-acts and related evidence offered to show motive, intent, or premeditation.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach a key Commonwealth witness.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of sentence.
- The court held the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Potts shared Owens’s specific intent to kill and participated as an accomplice.
- The court rejected Potts’s ineffective-assistance claims, concluding counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise meritless objections and Potts did not show prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- An accomplice is criminally liable if, with intent to promote or facilitate the offense, the person aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid another in planning or committing it.
- For first-degree murder, an accomplice must share the specific intent to kill required of the principal.
- The Commonwealth may prove each element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt by wholly circumstantial evidence, including shared intent and participation.
- Evidence of other misconduct or related acts may be admissible to prove motive, intent, or design (including premeditation) when its probative value outweighs unfair prejudice.
- Counsel is not ineffective for failing to pursue objections lacking merit; ineffective-assistance relief requires both deficient performance and prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court sustained Potts’s first-degree murder conviction as an accomplice because the totality of the circumstantial evidence—including threats, luring the victim to an isolated location with knowledge of weapons, failure to intervene, and post-killing conduct—permitted a finding of shared specific intent to kill, and it found no ineffective assistance in counsel’s handling of theories, evidence, or impeachment.


Commonwealth v. Potts, 566 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989)