Court Opinion

ID: 9701270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:13:26.048261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:21.872483
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. A manifest injustice results from the majority permitting Appellant’s sentence of death to stand when the same would be vacated if it arose on direct appeal today. In sustaining Appellant’s sentence of death, the majority focuses on the horrifying facts of this case and loses sight of the legal issue. Simply stated, the law of this Commonwealth requires that an instruction be given defining the aggravating circumstance of torture. No instruction whatsoever was given in the instant case. Counsel was ineffective for failing to object and request such an instruction. Accordingly, I would vacate Appellant’s sentence of death and remand the case for a new sentencing hearing so that the jury would be instructed on the definition of torture as an aggravating circumstance.
The majority states that “[t]he appellant would have this court assume that the jury, composed of twelve adults chosen from the community, nevertheless was incapable of applying the commonly understood meaning of the term ‘torture’ in order to have found that ‘torture’ existed as an aggravating circumstance or that Appellant intended his torture.” (Maj. op. at 540). What Appellant suggests is precisely the law of this Commonwealth. In Commonwealth v. Nelson, 514 Pa. 262, 523 A.2d 728 (1987), our Court decided that a jury instruction lacking a definition of torture was prejudicially deficient and counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the inadequate charge. Our Court again found that the absence of an instruction defining torture was prejudicially deficient in Commonwealth v. Crawley, 514 Pa. 539, 526 A.2d 334 (1987), and Commonwealth v. Wharton, 530 Pa. 127, 607 A.2d 710 (1992).1 The failure to apply this law to the instant case is unwarranted.
*548I fail to understand how a jury of twelve persons in the community is capable of defining torture, when this Court has wrestled with that very definition for years. A definition is hardly crystal clear when even legal scholars cannot decipher its precise meaning.2
The majority correctly asserts that the trial of the instant case was held in 1983 and that it was not until Nelson was decided in 1987 that our Court concluded that juries require guidance as to the definition of the aggravating circumstance of torture. (Maj. op. at 537, footnote 8). Should we therefore resolve the case before us assuming that only juries subsequent to Nelson require this guidance whereas juries prior thereto were somehow otherwise enlightened as to the definition of the term? Due process requires that such guidance be given in order to ensure that the death penalty is imposed only in certain circumstances narrowly set forth by the legislature.3
Similarly, the majority reiterates that our Court “did not require additional direction regarding the word ‘torture’ until several years after Appellant’s trial____” (Maj. op. at 541). It was not until 1987 in Nelson that a case came before us raising the issue of whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request an adequate charge. Appellant did not challenge counsel’s effectiveness in this regard on direct appeal because he was still represented by trial counsel. Rather, he first *549raised the contention when he was represented by other counsel in his PCRA petition. He is therefore in the same position as Nelson was when, represented by counsel other than trial counsel, he raised the same issue in direct appeal.
I recognize that a legal definition of torture was not established at the time of trial. Counsel, however, should have requested some guidance from the court so that the sentence of death would not be arbitrarily imposed.
A similar predicament arose in Commonwealth v. Pursell, 508 Pa. 212, 495 A.2d 183 (1985). No legal definition of torture had been formulated at the time of trial, yet the court gave the jury a charge which contained a guiding definition of the term. Without prior supporting caselaw, the trial court in Pursell provided a charge that satisfied due process requirements. The same is not true in the instant case. Although counsel cannot be responsible for anticipating future developments in the law, he is surely responsible for assuring that his client receives due process.
I also find unpersuasive the majority’s comparison of the instant case with Commonwealth v. Jasper, 526 Pa. 497, 587 A.2d 705 (1991). In Jasper, the appellant argued that the trial court failed to define “knowingly” in the context of the aggravating circumstance providing that the defendant “knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to the victim.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(7). We there held that “the term ‘knowingly’ used in § 9711(d)(7) does not require a unique understanding of the word.” 526 Pa. at 508, 587 A.2d at 711. We also stated, “there is no unusual legal significance to the term ‘knowingly’ in this instance which would require knowledge other than its common usage.” Id. The same is not true for the word “torture.” Unlike the word “knowingly” in § 9711(d)(7), “torture” is a substantive term of the aggravating circumstance of § 9711(d)(8).
The majority further concludes that “Appellant has utterly failed to demonstrate how the verdict in this case would have been different but for his trial counsel’s purported omission.” (Maj. op. at 542). I believe it is impossible for Appellant to *550make such a demonstration. There is no way to discover the effect of the failure to instruct on the definition of torture without knowledge of what the jurors considered in their deliberations.
Accordingly, due to the severity of the sentence imposed, I would apply Nelson and its progeny to the instant case and find counsel ineffective for failing to request an instruction defining the aggravating circumstance of torture.

. It should be noted that both Crawley and Wharton involved terribly heinous acts, gruesomely comparable to those in the instant case, yet the aggravating circumstance of torture was not upheld, due to the lack *548of an instruction defining torture. Also, there is no evidence that the juries in either Crawley or Wharton requested guidance during deliberations as to what torture meant. The fact that no guidance was requested in the instant case is therefore of no moment.

. The definition of torture has evolved since Commonwealth v. Pursell, 508 Pa. 212, 495 A.2d 183 (1985). Since that time, we have concluded that the fact that an act was heinous and atrocious is not conclusive evidence that the act was committed by means of torture. The defendant must also have the specific intent to cause pain and suffering to the victim and not be satisfied with the killing alone. Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 516 Pa. 441, 532 A.2d 813 (1987).

. It is the responsibility of the courts to "channel the sentencer’s discretion by 'clear arid objective standards’ that provide 'specific and detailed guidance,' and that 'make rationally reviewable the process for imposing a sentence of death.' " Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428, 100 S.Ct. 1759, 1764-65, 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980).