State Superior Court tosses Clearfield woman’s conviction in alleged murder plot
Parks accused of plotting murder of estranged husband
Trending
The Pennsylvania Superior Court on Friday vacated the conviction and life sentence of a Clearfield County woman who, with her paramour, allegedly plotted the murder of her estranged husband two years ago.
A panel of the Superior Court concluded that the trial judge, Paul E. Cherry, erred when he rejected a request by the woman's attorney to instruct the jury on the possible defense of "justifiable use of force" due to the husband's repeated violence against her and his actions the night of murder when he entered her home.
The husband, Kodey Lee Parks, 33, on the night of Feb. 24, 2024, arrived at the home of Danielle Elizabeth Parks in Morrisdale, Clearfield County, for a custody exchange.
After placing the couple's three children in his car, Kodey, the defense maintained, became "enraged" and reentered the home where a struggle occurred that involved Danielle and her paramour, Bryan Michaelis, fighting with Kodey.
Danielle and Bryan the day before had purchased a .22-caliber handgun at a local store, and, during the struggle, the gun was drawn.
Danielle was able to free herself and was walking toward a bedroom in the home when Michaelis shot and killed Kodey.
The Superior Court panel, in its 57-page opinion, indicated that Danielle initially took the blame for the shooting, but when the ongoing investigation into the shooting did not support her claim, it was determined that Michaelis was the actual shooter.
Both Danielle and Bryan were charged with first degree murder and, in separate trials, were convicted.
Danielle, 40, is serving her sentence in the State Correctional Institution in Muncy while Michaelis, 50, is incarcerated in SCI Fayette.
Danielle Parks, represented by State College attorney Wayne E. Bradburn, filed an appeal with the Superior Court.
The focus of the appeal was the trial judge's rejection of the defense request for an instruction to the jury concerning the use of deadly force to protect one's self or another person.
The Superior Court panel that included Judges Mary Jane Bowes, Judith F. Olson and Mary P. Murray stated, "Pertinently, at her trial, (Danielle) testified that Michaelis shot (Kodey) in defense of himself and Danielle after the victim invaded her residence and attacked her."
The prosecution, led by Clearfield County District Attorney Ryan P. Sayers, presented the jury with a different argument -- that the couple lured Kodey into the house that night as part of a plot to kill him.
Danielle, who was not present during the actual shooting, was convicted "based on accomplice liability," the Superior Court panel summarized.
During her trial, the judge and lawyers held a charging conference in which Danielle's counsel asked for an instruction to be presented to the jury "regarding the justifiable use of force in self defense and in the defense of others."
The defense contended there was evidence in the trial that Michaelis was defending Danielle against an attack by her estranged husband.
The prosecution argued against the instruction.
The judge then rejected the instruction, noting Danielle, at the time of the murder, was not acting in her own defense or the defense of another person -- she was simply walking toward a bedroom.
The defense in its argument before the Superior Court panel contended that lack of self defense instruction possibly altered the outcome of the case.
The panel in its opinion concluded that Danielle's account of the case, if believed, indicated that her husband had forcibly entered the home and that Michaelis "would be presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself or another against death or serious bodily injury."
The panel continued, noting that "We determine the evidence at trial provided the jury with a possible basis for finding a valid claim of defense of others, and the trial court therefore abused its discretion in refusing to give the requested jury instruction.
"Instantly, because (Danielle's) entire defense rested on her claim that the shooting was justified, the lack of a justification instruction is 'particularly offensive,' and requires we vacate Danielle's judgement of sentence and remand for a new trial."
District Attorney Sayers said Monday said he is studying the opinion, pointing out that the case is one of a kind -- a case of first impression with little or no precedent either in Pennsylvania or courts nationwide.
He said he has three options at the moment:
– He can ask for a rehearing of the case before the entire Superior Court that includes 15 judges.
– He can file an appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, emphasizing this is a case of first impression.
– Or, he can schedule a retrial.
He explained that the Michaelis case remains on appeal, but the charge to the Michaelis jury included an instruction on the justifiable use of force as a possible defense.