Commonwealth v. Knight, M., Aplt. – No. 775 CA

In the case of Commonwealth v. Knight, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addresses a number of claims in the evaluation of a Death Penalty Sentence.

The defendant pleaded guilty to first degree murder and a number of other charges following the gruesome murder of a 30-year-old intellectually disabled woman. Following his guilty plea, the defendant had his penalty phase trial – where a jury determines if the defendant should be sentenced to death or life in prison. The jury is to consider a number of aggravating factors and mitigating factors presented at the trial, and if the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, the defendant will be sentenced to death. In this case, the jury found 2 aggravating factors – that the murder was committed in the perpetration of a felony and that the murder was committed by means of torture. The jury also found as mitigating factors that the defendant lacked a significant history of prior criminal convictions, the fact that the defendant was under extreme mental or emotional disturbance, and that the defendant was under extreme duress or under the substantial dominion of another person. Despite the 3 mitigating factors, the jury found they were outweighed by the aggravating factors and the defendant was sentenced to death. <img class=”alignright size-medium wp-image-25877″ src=”https://www.themcshanefirm.com/wp-content/uploads/weapon-security-fear-home-woman-crime-scared-robbery-assault-home-security_t20_OxokNb-300×158.jpg” alt=”” width=”300″ height=”158″>

On this appeal, the defendant raises several issues. The first claim raised is that the death penalty in Pennsylvania is unconstitutional as it is cruel and unusual punishment and should be abolished. In his brief, the defendant fails to offer any of the constitutional provisions he claims his sentence violates, nor does he offer any arguments as to why his sentence violates those provisions. He instead makes reference and attempts to incorporate a brief authored by another attorney. The court held that such “incorporation by reference is an unacceptable manner of appellate advocacy for the proper presentation of a claim for relief. As defendant’s claim is devoid of any original argument regarding the constitutionality, the Court finds that he has waived this challenge.

The defendant’s next argument is that the Court erred in denying an Atkins instruction. An Atkins instruction advises the jury that a defendant who is determined to be intellectually disabled is not eligible for the death penalty. The court held that the determination to give an Atkins instruction is a 3-prong test – limited intellectual functioning; significant adaptive limitations; and onset prior to the age of 18. Here, the court found that the defendant failed to demonstrate that his IQ fell within a certain range, documented prior to the age of 18, and for that reason, it was proper to deny the Atkins instruction.

The defendant’s next argument is that the jury improperly found 3 aggravating factors when the prosecution asked for 2. The jury found that the murder was committed in the course of 2 separate felonies and noted that as 2 separate aggravating factors. The court found that the defendant waived this argument as he did not raise it in his Statement of Matters Complained of on appeal and secondly, he failed to object to the jury verdict at the trial court level.

In his next issue, he claims the judge erred by not allowing defense counsel to read from an expert report during closing. The Court finds that this claim was also waived by the defendant as he again failed to raise an objection at the trial court and secondly, he failed to explain what evidence he was prevented of conveying to the jury as a result of the limitation.

The defendant’s next claim is that he requested and was denied an Allen instruction. An Allen instruction is given to a jury when they are deadlocked, and the charge is given to attempt to force the jury to come to a verdict. Yet again, the court found that this argument was waived as he failed to raise it in his Statement of the Questions involved, and there is no separate section for this claim in the argument portion of the brief. Further, he failed to raise any objection at the trial court.

Next, the defendant claims the Court erred by not allowing him to ask particular questions of the jury in an attempt to determine if they would only vote for life or only vote for death in a format known as the Colorado method. The Court found no error holding that the purpose of voir dire is solely to ensure the empaneling of a competent, fair, impartial and unprejudiced jury capable of following the instructions of the trial court. There is no requirement in Pennsylvania that the Colorado method is used and the Court discerned no error.

In his next issue, the defendant claims that the court erred when it allowed the jury to take a number of photographs back to the deliberation room which resulted in the jury acting on inflamed passions. The Court held that photographic evidence of a murder victim is not per se inadmissible. The Court must first determine if the photograph is inflammatory and then, if it is, the Court must apply a balancing test to determine whether the photograph is of such essential evidentiary value that its need clearly outweighs the likelihood of inflaming the minds and passions of the jury. In a capital case, photographic evidence in the penalty phase can have evidentiary value if it helps the jury understand the history and natural development of the facts of the case or if they potentially rebut mitigation evidence. In this case, the photographs admitted were not gruesome. Rather they showed that the victim was subjected to a lengthy period of torture before she was killed and the restraint and humiliation that was inflicting upon her in this regard. The court found that they had essential evidentiary value and that value was not outweighed by their inflammatory nature.

Next, the defendant alleges that the jury instruction pertaining to considering victim impact evidence when weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances violated the rule that verdicts cannot be based on passion, prejudice or any arbitrary factor. Because the defendant did not raise this claim at the trial court level when it was given, this argument is waived.

In his final argument, the defendant claims that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and based on passion or prejudice. The Court may not reverse a death penalty sentence on weight of the evidence grounds so that claim is dismissed. Additionally, the Court found that the verdict was supported by the factual evidence presented and not the product of passion, prejudice or some arbitrary factor.

In conclusion, the court found that the verdict of the jury, finding that aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors, was proper and complies with a statutory mandate for death. There are no grounds on which to reverse the sentence.