Opinion ID: 2319241
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Challenges to Section 9711

Text: Appellant contends that Section 9711 violates due process and equal protection by allowing imposition of the death penalty in an arbitrary fashion. See Appellant's Brief at 74 (Argument XVI). Specifically, he argues the statute fails to provide specific guidelines that would assist the jury in [weighing] aggravating and mitigating factors, thereby ensuring consistence, as well as a rational and fair application of the statute. Appellant's Brief at 74. He further claims the statute allows complete and unbridled discretion on the part of the prosecutor in determining whether or not to apply the death penalty, and allows for different standards to be established by each of the prosecutors in the 67 different counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania without the existence of any guidelines. Id. at 74-75. This Court, however, rejected this same argument in Commonwealth v. DeHart, 512 Pa. 235, 516 A.2d 656 (1986) (finding the death penalty statute constitutional and rejecting the argument that prosecutorial discretion in seeking the death penalty violates due process by allowing for arbitrary selection of its imposition). Thus, Appellant's argument fails. Appellant next argues that subsection (d)(1) of Section 9711, which provides for an aggravating circumstance where the victim is, inter alia, a state, local, or federal law enforcement official, is unconstitutional because it arbitrarily and unfairly places a higher worth or value on the lives of law enforcement and/or governmental authorities, thereby violating notions of fundamental fairness and equal protection in both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, and violating the fundamental notion in constitutional law that all men are created equal. See Appellant's Brief at 75 (Argument XVII). This Court repeatedly has upheld the aggravator set forth in Section 9711(d)(1) against the same constitutional challenge raised by Appellant. See Commonwealth v. Abdul-Salaam, 544 Pa. 514, 678 A.2d 342 (1996); Commonwealth v. Bracey, 541 Pa. 322, 662 A.2d 1062 (1995); Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 533 Pa. 539, 626 A.2d 133 (1993). Thus, Appellant's argument on this issue, the totality of which is set forth above, also is without merit.