Commonwealth v. Marcus R. Johnson
Whether Smith v. Arizona (2024) recognized a new, retroactive constitutional right satisfying the exception in § 9545(b)(1)(iii) for a second petition challenging a medical examiner's testimony under the Confrontation Clause.
Summary by John A. Julian, Esq. Updated October 1, 2026.
- CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
- Docket877 EDA 2025
- Citation2026 Pa. Super. 32
- DecidedFebruary 23, 2026
- DispositionAffirmed
- OpinionRead the opinion | Court PDF
What the court held
Smith did not create a new constitutional right; by its own terms it followed Crawford, Melendez-Diaz, and Bullcoming and merely clarified how they apply when an expert relays an absent analyst's statements. Even if Smith were new, neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held it retroactive on collateral review, and that holding must exist before the petition is filed. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits.
Why it matters. Smith v. Arizona will not open the door for untimely Confrontation Clause claims. The exception requires both a new right and an existing retroactivity holding, and an argument that a decision applied an old rule to new facts cuts against the exception.
Does this decision affect a case you know? The window to act on a new decision can be as short as one year from the date it was announced. Request a case review or call (215) 568-0607.
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the opinion before relying on it.