Opinion ID: 6335826
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Verdict of death

Text: This Court is required to review every death sentence and “shall affirm the sentence of death unless it determines that: (i) the sentence of death was the product of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor; or (ii) the evidence fails to support the finding of at least one aggravating circumstance specified in subsection (d).” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(1), (3); Commonwealth v. Harris, 817 A.2d 1033, 1058 (Pa. 2002). The death penalty was imposed for the murder of Officer Shaw and the Commonwealth presented one aggravating circumstance, that Officer Shaw was a peace officer murdered while in the line of duty. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(1). Holt conceded that the Commonwealth established the aggravating circumstance. N.T., 11/14/2019, at 94 (“[W]e concede that the government has established their aggravator.”). The evidence supports this concession, and the “sound factual predicate for the aggravating factors bolsters a conclusion that the sentence was not the result of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 160 A.3d 127, 153 (Pa. 2017). Holt submitted the catch-all mitigating circumstance. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(8) (“Any other evidence of mitigation concerning the character and record of the defendant and the circumstances of the offense.”). One or more of the jurors found its presence, specifically the “lack of parental guidance growing up, [being] raised in a high crime [J-64-2021] - 52 environment and [the] violent death of his brother.” Sentencing Verdict Slip, 11/14/2019, at 3. Ultimately, the jury determined that the mitigating circumstances was outweighed by the aggravator. Holt argues this was a highly publicized and emotionally charged case involving a victim that “was a young popular local white police officer[,]” while Holt “was a young African American male with a Muslim sounding name … from Allegheny County.” Holt’s Brief at 48. Holt notes that Westmoreland County has a limited number of African Americans in its jury pools.23 Id. As a result, the jury was composed of all white jurors and alternates. Id. Holt also highlights the “passionate display of police presence” at “every minute of every trial proceeding … in full view of the jury.” Id. It is his contention that this “unquestionably had a significant impact on the jury.” Id. Holt contends that these factors resulted in an expedited guilty verdict and subsequent death sentence. 24 Id. at 48-49. The Commonwealth asserts that Holt makes only “general claims” that his death sentence was the product of passion, prejudice, or other arbitrary factors. Commonwealth’s Brief at 53. With respect to Holt’s argument that he did not receive a proper verdict and sentence because of his race and the race of the jurors, the Commonwealth contends that this “is a spurious allegation unsupported by evidence.” Id. at 53-54. Moreover, the record reflects that Holt “fully participated in jury selection[,]” making no claim of partiality or prejudice by any juror. Id. at 54. As for Holt’s claim 23“According to U.S. Census Bureau records, 2.6% of Westmoreland County is African American.” Holt’s Brief at 48 n.22. 24 The jury entered the guilty verdict one hour after it began deliberations, and a verdict of death two days later after less than two hours of deliberation. Holt’s Brief at 14. [J-64-2021] - 53 concerning the overwhelming police presence during the trial, the Commonwealth argues that this is not a matter of record and was not objected to, and is thereby waived. Id. (citing Pa.R.E. 103; Pa.R.A.P. 302). It also notes that the trial court previously explained that any police officers in attendance were not in uniform, and that any uniformed officers present “during trial were deputy sheriffs assigned for courtroom security.” Id.; Trial Court Opinion, 8/21/2020, at 23. Lastly, the Commonwealth argues that the length of jury deliberations, by itself, does not support a finding of passion or prejudice, but rather “reflects the strength of the Commonwealth’s case.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 55. The Commonwealth correctly notes that Holt participated fully in jury selection without asserting partiality or prejudice on the part of any juror. Commonwealth’s Brief at 53-54; Trial Court Opinion, 8/21/2020, at 23. We add that Holt did not challenge the composition of the panel. At its core, Holt’s primary contention is that the jury deliberated too quickly, and thus it defies logic to conclude that the decision was not a result of passion, prejudice or arbitrary factors. See Holt’s Brief at 14-15, 23, 43, 49. However, this Court has found that the length of jury deliberations by itself is not enough to demonstrate passion or prejudice. Commonwealth v. Reyes, 963 A.2d 436, 442 (Pa. 2009). Our review of the record reveals that this decision was solemnly rendered and in accordance with the jury’s duty to follow the law. We do not find that the sentence was the product of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. Accordingly, we affirm all convictions and the sentence of death. The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court is directed to transmit the complete record of this case to the Governor. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(i). [J-64-2021] - 54 Chief Justice Baer and Justice Todd join the opinion.