Commonwealth v. Harris
572 Pa. 489, 817 A.2d 1033, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2395 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a capital sentencing hearing, evidence concerning the impact of a defendant's potential execution on their family is not admissible as mitigation because it is not relevant to the defendant's character, record, or the circumstances of the offense.
Facts:
- On August 1, 1995, Daryl Martin intervened in an argument between Christopher Harris and his former girlfriend, Maxine Snook, at a bar in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
- Harris severely beat Martin and was subsequently charged with aggravated assault, for which a trial was scheduled for November 1996.
- Prior to his assault trial, Harris obtained the home addresses of several witnesses against him, including Martin, from police reports.
- Harris directed his then-girlfriend, Kimberly Kistler, to verify that Martin lived at the address he had obtained.
- On November 3, 1996, at Harris's instruction, Kistler called Martin, identified herself as 'Patty,' and lured him to a restaurant for a meeting.
- After Martin arrived and entered the restaurant, Harris slashed the left front tire of Martin's car.
- When Martin discovered the flat tire and pulled into a nearby abandoned parking lot, Harris ambushed him with a knife, slashing his throat and killing him.
- Following the murder, Harris discarded his bloodstained jacket and sneakers and instructed Kistler to help him fabricate a detailed alibi.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher Harris was tried before a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, a state trial court.
- On October 4, 1997, the jury convicted Harris of first-degree murder.
- Following a penalty hearing, the jury found one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances, resulting in a sentencing verdict of death.
- Harris filed post-verdict motions, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court formally imposed the death sentence.
- Harris then filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exclusion of testimony regarding the impact a defendant's execution would have on their family violate the defendant's constitutional rights in a capital sentencing proceeding where victim impact testimony is admitted?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Castille
No. The exclusion of 'execution impact' testimony is constitutionally permissible because such evidence is not relevant mitigating evidence under Pennsylvania's capital sentencing statute or controlling precedent. The court reasoned that mitigating evidence must concern the defendant's character, record, or the circumstances of the offense. Testimony about the impact an execution would have on third parties, such as the defendant's family, does not fall within this scope and therefore its exclusion does not violate the principles established in Skipper v. South Carolina. The court also rejected Harris's Batson challenge, finding the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons for striking a juror credible. It further held that letters written by Harris were admissible because their initial discovery was by a private party, not a state agent, thus not implicating the Fourth Amendment.
Concurring - Justice Nigro
Agrees with the majority's conclusion. Justice Nigro writes separately to express concern over dicta in footnote 16 of the majority opinion. He argues that the footnote could be misinterpreted to suggest that 'third party impact' evidence might be used as aggravating evidence. Justice Nigro clarifies that such evidence is not a statutory aggravating circumstance and has no place in the capital sentencing scheme for either aggravation or mitigation.
Concurring and dissenting - Chief Justice Zappala
Yes. The sentence of death should be reversed for a new penalty hearing where 'execution impact' evidence would be admissible. While maintaining his view that victim impact evidence is unconstitutional, Chief Justice Zappala argues that the court's precedent allowing it (Commonwealth v. Means) logically requires the admission of 'execution impact' testimony. He contends that if the harm to the victim's family is relevant, then fundamental fairness dictates that the harm to the defendant's family from an execution is equally relevant. The majority's decision creates an illogical and unfair asymmetry by allowing one form of impact evidence while excluding the other.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Pennsylvania's law on impact evidence in capital cases, creating a clear distinction between admissible victim impact testimony and inadmissible 'execution impact' testimony. It establishes the precedent that mitigating evidence must be tethered directly to the defendant's character, record, or the circumstances of the offense. By doing so, the court prevents defendants from using the potential suffering of their families as a basis for a mercy appeal, narrowing the scope of what constitutes relevant mitigation. This creates an asymmetrical framework where the prosecution can present emotional testimony about the victim's family's loss, but the defense is barred from presenting similar testimony about the defendant's family's potential loss, a point of contention highlighted by the dissent.
