Opinion ID: 2319241
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failure to Exclude Evidence of the Nichols, Levato, and Newcomer Homicides under Commonwealth v. Beasley

Text: As an additional basis for his contention that the trial court erred in failing to exclude evidence of the Nichols, Levato, and Newcomer homicides, Appellant relies on this Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Beasley, 505 Pa. 279, 479 A.2d 460 (1984). See Appellant's Brief at 45 (Argument X). In Beasley, the appellant alleged trial court error in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce evidence at his penalty phase proceeding that the appellant had been convicted and sentenced to death for the first-degree murder of a police officer three months earlier. According to the appellant, the prosecution should have been limited to establishing only the fact that appellant was convicted of previous murders, without elaboration as to the facts and circumstances, or the penalties imposed. In rejecting the appellant's argument, this Court explained: Inasmuch as 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711(d) begins with the preface, Aggravating circumstances shall be limited to the following . . ., it is clear that the legislature did not intend consideration by the jury of matters extraneous to the enumerated aggravating circumstances. The relevant provision, (d)(9), focuses upon past convictions as being an aggravating circumstance. We do not believe the legislative reference to convictions is so narrow in scope as to render extraneous all of the facts and circumstances of the convictions, or the sentences imposed. In this Commonwealth, sentencing has long been regarded as having at its core a function of character analysis. See Commonwealth v. Bell, [417 Pa. 291, 208 A.2d 465 (1965) ], and the central idea of the present sentencing statute is to allow a jury to take into account such relevant information, bearing upon a defendant's character and record, as is applicable to the task of considering the enumerated aggravating circumstances. Consideration of prior convictions was not intended to be a meaningless and abstract ritual, but rather a process through which a jury would gain considerable insight into a defendant's character. The nature of an offense, as ascertained through examination of the circumstances concomitant to its commission, has much bearing upon the character of a defendant, and, indeed, without reference to those facts and circumstances, consideration of convictions would be a hollow process, yielding far less information about a defendant's character than is relevant. Convictions are defined by the essential and necessary facts upon which they are based, and judgments of sentence flow naturally from, and form an integral part of, those convictions. Thus, reason impels that the construction of the term convictions in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711(d)(9) be such as to permit consideration of the essential and necessary facts pertaining to the convictions, including the circumstances of the crimes and the sentences imposed. 505 Pa. at 288-89, 479 A.2d at 465. Appellant argues that, in Beasley, this Court permitted some explanation of the facts surrounding [the appellant's] conviction only because the conviction was being introduced as a valid aggravating circumstance.. . . The Court was clearly not making a finding that the facts surrounding a prior conviction were admissible in instances where that prior conviction did not qualify as an aggravating circumstance. Appellant's Brief at 45 (emphasis original). Appellant contends that, because, by agreement, his convictions for the Nichols, Levato and Newcomer homicides could not be introduced in the present case as valid aggravating circumstances, the facts surrounding those convictions are wholly immaterial and irrelevant. Id. The Commonwealth maintains that, although this Court's language in Beasley referred to aggravating circumstances, the same reasoning applies equally to convictions introduced to rebut [Appellant's] claim that he is now a good person. Commonwealth's Brief at 46. We agree with the Commonwealth in this regard. As discussed above, evidence regarding the circumstances of the Nichols, Levato, and Newcomer homicides was admissible to demonstrate Appellant's motive and intent in killing Officer Miller, and to rebut the evidence of good character offered by Appellant. Beasley does not stand for the proposition that evidence of prior convictions is admissible only if such evidence is used to support a finding of aggravating circumstances. Appellant additionally argues that, based on this Court's statement in Beasley that the term conviction under Section 9711(d)(9) includes consideration of the surrounding circumstances of the crime, an agreement not to introduce `convictions' must logically require that not only should convictions not be introduced but so [too] should their underlying facts and circumstances be excluded. Appellant's Brief at 46. This Court, however, did not countenance such reverse logic in Beasley, and we decline to do so now.