Commonwealth v. Kerrigan

J. A32034/06III.IV.Should this Court find that there was sufficient evidence toconfer jurisdiction on the penile penetration crimes, trialwas counsel [sic] ineffective for failing to request juryinstructions delineating the need to find – beyond areasonable doubt – that such conduct occurred inPennsylvania?Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to raise an objectionto the court’s jury instructions that positioned the case sothat the jury would have to determine who to believe –thereby placing a burden of being believed on thedefendant’s testimony and his defense – and also deprivinghim of reasonable doubts to which he was entitled underthe federal constitution?V. Did the trial court’s general instructions that the defendanthad no burden to prove that he was not guilty and that theCommonwealth had the burden of proving each and everyelement of the offense cure or overcome the conflictingand unconstitutional instructions it gave as to the jury’sobligation to determine which conflicting testimony tobelieve?VI.VII.Should the court have granted the defense motion for amistrial when a Commonwealth witness revealed that theappellant had been imprisoned in New Jersey?Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to request acautionary instruction as to the alleged prior criminalactivity to which AR testified in New Jersey?VIII. Must an arrest of judgment be granted on Appellant’sconviction for rape of a child with serious bodily injury andinvoluntary deviate sexual intercourse with serious bodilyinjury because serious bodily injury was not proven?Brief for Appellant at 6 (capitalization removed to improve readability). 6 In support of his first question, Kerrigan argues that the evidence wasinsufficient to support his convictions “which required penile penetration”-5-