Opinion ID: 2283170
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Cruel and Unusual Punishment Due to Allocation of Burden of Proof

Text: This argument is reprinted in its entirety: 18 Pa. C.S.A.  1311 is in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clauses of the state and federal constitutions because it expressly provides that the jury's verdict must be a sentence of death if the jury unanimously finds at least one aggravating circumstance . . . and no mitigating circumstance. This mandatory rule combined with the allocation to the defendant of the burden of proving mitigating circumstances, see Argument VIII, supra, prevents the jury from giving independent mitigating weight to aspects of the defendant's character and record and to circumstances of the offense proferred in mitigation. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 606, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 2965, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (Plurality opinion of Burger, C.J.) For example, if the jury believed there was a significant probability that defendant's participation in the homicidal act was relatively minor,  1311(e)(7), but were not convinced of that fact by a preponderance of the evidence,  1311(c)(1)(iii), they would be precluded under the statute from deciding that life imprisonment rather than death should be imposed because of their doubt as to the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime. This is in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clauses of the state and federal constitution. Appellant's example is absurd, for a jury's finding that a significant probability that a particular fact were true would surely satisfy it that defendant had met his burden, especially in light of the court's instruction that a preponderance of the evidence exists when one side is more believable than the other side. N.T. 1881. We have already discussed the general issue regarding the allocation of the burden of proving mitigating circumstances.