Opinion ID: 2317878
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in this Case

Text: Appellant advances two arguments that his death sentence is unconstitutional. First, he argues that the sentence of death was the product of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(3)(i), thereby requiring reversal. The arbitrary factor on which Appellant relies is the decision of the prosecutor to seek the death penalty. Second, he argues that the evidence fails to support the finding of at least one aggravating circumstance specified in subsection (d), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(3)(ii), thereby requiring reversal. The jury found that the following two aggravating factors outweighed any mitigating factors: [t]he defendant committed a killing while in the perpetration of a felony (burglary), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(6); and [t]he defendant has been convicted of another murder committed in any jurisdiction and committed either before or at the time of the offense at issue, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(11). With respect to each aggravating factor, Appellant's argument is the same: that the felony supporting the (d)(6) aggravator (burglary), and the double murder supporting the (d)(11) aggravator, were all part of the same criminal incident, and therefore should not have been submitted to the jury as aggravating factors. He suggests that when burglary is used as an aggravating felony, the burglary should be independent of the murder, rather than in preparation of the murder. Similarly, because he views the multiple murders as a single criminal incident, Appellant argues that they should not count as aggravation for each other. Section 9711 requires us to vacate the sentence of death if the it was the product of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, or if the evidence fails to support at least one aggravating circumstance... 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(3)(i), (ii). There is no support for Appellant's argument that the decision of the prosecutor to request the death penalty is the arbitrary factor that renders the sentence reversible under Section 9711(h)(3)(i). If this were the case, the prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty could actually render the death penalty reversible. This would amount to an absurd result and is untenable. Turning to Appellant's assertion that there was insufficient evidence to support the two aggravating circumstances found by the jury, we have repeatedly held that the commission of a first-degree murder during the perpetration of a burglary may support the finding of the (d)(6) aggravator. See Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 588 Pa. 218, 903 A.2d 1178, 1183 (2006); Commonwealth v. Reid, 571 Pa. 1, 811 A.2d 530, 555 (2002); Commonwealth v. Basemore, 525 Pa. 512, 582 A.2d 861 (1990); Commonwealth v. Henry, 524 Pa. 135, 569 A.2d 929 (1990); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 522 Pa. 256, 561 A.2d 699 (1989). Regarding the (d)(11) aggravating circumstance, we have affirmed the death penalty where multiple murders constituted aggravating circumstances for each other. See Reid, 811 A.2d at 555; Commonwealth v. Saranchak, 544 Pa. 158, 675 A.2d 268 (1996); Commonwealth v. Steele, 522 Pa. 61, 559 A.2d 904 (1989). [15] For these reasons, Appellant's constitutional challenges to the death penalty are devoid of merit. Because we find no error in appellant's sentences of death for the murders of Sherri Chamberlain and Greg Inman, we must affirm the sentences of death unless we find that they were the product of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(3)(i). Having reviewed the trial record, we conclude that the sentences of death were not a product of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, but were based upon the evidence. The evidence also was sufficient to support the aggravating circumstances the jury found when it imposed both death sentences. See 42 Pa. C.S. § 9711(h)(3)(ii). Accordingly, we affirm the verdicts and the judgments of sentence, including the sentences of death. [16] Chief Justice CASTILLE, Justices SAYLOR, EAKIN, TODD, McCAFFERY and ORIE MELVIN join this opinion.