Rule 1941. Review of Sufficiency of the Evidence and the Propriety of the Penalty 

in Death Penalty Appeals.

(a) Procedure in trial court.—Upon the entry of a sentence subject to 42 Pa.C.S. 

§ 9711(h) (review of death sentence) the court shall direct the official court reporter and 

the clerk to proceed under this chapter as if a notice of appeal had been filed 20 days 

after the date of entry of the sentence of death, and the clerk shall immediately give 

written notice of the entry of the sentence [to the Administrative Office and] to the 

Supreme Court Prothonotary’s Office. The clerk shall insert at the head of the list of 

documents required by Pa.R.A.P. 1931(c) a statement to the effect that the papers are 

transmitted under this rule from a sentence of death.

(b) Filing and docketing in the Supreme Court.—Upon receipt by the 

Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of the record of a matter subject to this rule, the 

Prothonotary shall immediately:

1. Enter the matter upon the docket as an appeal, with the defendant indicated 

as the appellant and the Commonwealth indicated as the appellee.

2. File the record in the Supreme Court.

3. Give written notice of the docket number assignment in person or by first 

class mail to the clerk of the trial court.

4. Give notice to all parties [and the Administrative Office] of the docket 

number assignment and the date on which the record was filed in the Supreme Court, 

and give notice to all parties of the date, if any, specially fixed by the Prothonotary 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2185(b) for the filing of the brief of the appellant.

(c) Further proceedings.—Except as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2189 or by statute, a 

matter subject to this rule shall proceed after docketing in the same manner as other 

appeals in the Supreme Court.

Official Note: Formerly the Act of February 15, 1870 (P.L. 15, [No. 6] § 2) 

required the appellate court to review the sufficiency of the evidence in certain homicide 

cases regardless of the failure of the appellant to challenge the matter. See, e.g.,

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 382 A.2d 1200, 1201 (Pa. 1978). Pa.R.A.P. 302 now 

provides otherwise with respect to homicide cases generally. However, under 

paragraph (c) of this rule the procedure for automatic review of capital cases provided 

by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h) (review of death sentence) will permit an independent review of 

the sufficiency of the evidence in such cases. In capital cases, the Supreme Court has 

jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal and will automatically review (1) the sufficiency of the 

evidence “to sustain a conviction for first-degree murder in every case in which the 
2

death penalty has been imposed;” (2) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the 

finding of at least one aggravating circumstance set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d); and 

(3) the imposition of the sentence of death to ensure that it was not the product of 

passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 902 A.2d 

430, 444, 468 (Pa. 2006); 42 Pa.C.S. § 722(4); 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(1), (3). Any other 

issues from the proceedings that resulted in the sentence of death may be reviewed 

only if they have been preserved and if the defendant files a timely notice of appeal. 

Likewise, although Pa.R.A.P. 702(b) vests jurisdiction in the Supreme Court over 

appeals from sentences imposed on a defendant for lesser offenses as a result of the 

same criminal episode or transaction where the offense is tried with the capital offense, 

the appeal from the lesser offenses is not automatic. Thus the right to appeal the 

judgment of sentence on a lesser offense will be lost unless all requisite steps are 

taken, including preservation of issues (such as by filing post-trial motions) and filing a 

timely notice of appeal.

See Pa.R.A.P. 2189 for provisions specific to the production of a reproduced 

record in cases involving the death penalty.