Court Opinion

ID: 9649079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:41:40.19819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:07.530729
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SAYLOR
DISSENTING.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s reasoning in the rejection of Appellant’s ineffectiveness claim involving the impeachment of his co-defendant, Donald Jackson; the rea*314soning and disposition concerning Appellant’s claim of counsel’s failure to adequately develop and present particular mitigating evidence; and the treatment of the prosecutor’s Biblical references in his guilt and penalty phase closing arguments.
First, the majority concludes that the impeachment issue is previously litigated, since, on direct appeal, Appellant challenged trial counsel’s failure to impeach Jackson with prior arrests that did not lead to conviction and prior convictions that did not involve crimes of dishonesty. See Commonwealth v. Stokes, 532 Pa. 242, 255, 615 A.2d 704, 711 (1992). In the present collateral proceedings, however, Appellant asserts that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to investigate and obtain evidence of mental health problems and substance abuse contained in a mental health evaluation and pre-sentence report prepared in connection with Jackson’s sentencing for his involvement in the offenses with Appellant. Alternatively, Appellant asserts that such evidence was in the Commonwealth’s possession, was exculpatory and, consistent with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), should have been turned- over to trial counsel. In my view, the current claim rests upon different evidentiary grounds and is substantially distinct from the one addressed by this Court on direct review. See generally Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 538 Pa. 455, 467, 649 A.2d 121, 126 (1994) (deeming a claim respecting the presentation of penalty phase evidence previously litigated where the appellant failed to show how the current claim was “substantially different from the one finally litigated ... on direct appeal”). Thus, I do not believe that the Court’s prior ruling addressed the merits of the present issue. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(a)(2) (stating that an issue is previously litigated where there has been a ruling on the merits).
Nevertheless, I agree with the majority’s disposition on this point for a different reason. The mental health of a witness or his ingestion of alcohol or controlled substances is relevant when it affects his ability to perceive or recollect the events at issue or affects his ability to testify. See Commonwealth v. Rizzuto, 566 Pa. 40, 60, 777 A.2d 1069, 1081 (2001). In this *315case, although the mental health evaluation and pre-sentence report indicate that Jackson had, in the past, suffered a head injury, and ingested alcohol and drugs, there is no indication in either report that such circumstances affected his perception of the events or impaired his ability to testify. Indeed, to the contrary, the mental health evaluation states that Jackson is “well oriented and is memory is intact,” and that there is no evidence of “psychotic thinking.” Consequently, on this claim, Appellant is not entitled to relief or a hearing.1'
With respect to Appellant’s ineffectiveness contention related to trial counsel’s penalty phase investigation and presentation, on direct review, Appellant maintained that counsel: failed to present an adequate closing argument; should have argued the existence of the mitigating circumstance under Section 9711(e)(1) of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(1), involving the absence of a history of prior criminal convictions; and should have presented sympathy testimony from family members. See Stokes, 532 Pa. at 261-62, 615 A.2d at 714. Appellant’s current allegation is premised upon the failure to introduce evidence of his impaired cognitive functioning and difficult childhood. In support, Appellant has proffered affidavits from a psychiatrist and a psychologist, indicating that such mental impairment was in the nature of organic brain damage, was of long-standing nature, and affected his impulse control, reasoning, and judgment. Furthermore, Appellant argues that evidence of his difficult childhood and mental impairment was available to trial counsel and reflected in his school and juvenile records. Because the ruling on direct review did not touch upon the propriety of presenting this evidence, I would not deem such claim previously litigated. Moreover, in my view, Appellant’s allegations and proffer were sufficient to create an issue of fact warrant*316ing an evidentiary hearing. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 557 Pa. 207, 249, 732 A.2d 1167, 1189-90 (1999).2 Accordingly, I would remand for fact-finding on this claim.
Finally, I do not subscribe to the majority’s view that the Biblical references by the prosecutor during his summations were proper in and of themselves and, therefore, unobjectionable. At the outset, I acknowledge Mr. Justice Castille’s point that the per se rule articulated in Commonwealth v. Chambers, 528 Pa. 558, 599 A.2d 630 (1991), was developed in the context of argumentation concerning imposition of the penalty of death. See id. at 586, 599 A.2d at 644. In the guilt phase, however, where the presumption of innocence remains in effect, there is also substantial reason to circumscribe reliance upon religious teachings particularly where, as here, such authority is invoked as a means of judging a defendant’s actions and the credibility of the witnesses. Concerning the penalty phase, although, as noted by the majority, there is additional latitude afforded a prosecutor because the presumption of innocence has evaporated, the considerations relevant to the imposition of the penalty at the time of Appellant’s trial were statutorily limited to evidence bearing on aggravating and mitigating circumstances. See Act of Sept. 13, 1978, P.L. 756, No. 141, § 1311(a)(2); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 545 Pa. 233, 266, 681 A.2d 130, 146 (1996).3
*317Here, certain of the prosecutor’s comments may be construed as indicating that because Appellant was not merciful by Biblical standards, he was not entitled to mercy under the law. As such commentary implicated considerations outside those delineated in the death penalty statute, I believe that it was improper.
However, as defense counsel specifically invoked the Bible in his guilt and penalty-phase closing remarks, I would treat the prosecutor’s references as invited response and, therefore, conclude that Appellant has not demonstrated prejudice. See United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 12, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1045, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (explaining the invited response doctrine as not granting a prosecutor “license to make otherwise improper arguments,” but rather, as a component in an evaluation of prejudice based upon contextual considerations); accord Commonwealth v. Cook, 544 Pa. 361, 381-83, 676 A.2d 639, 649-50 (1996). Notably, Appellant has not raised a challenge to his trial counsel’s strategy in this regard.
Chief Justice CAPPY joins this dissenting opinion.

. While under Commonwealth v. Williams, 566 Pa. 553, 782 A.2d 517 (2001), this claim might be properly preserved within a general remand based on inadequacy of the pre-dismissal notice afforded by the PCRA court, see infra note 2, since Williams the Court has narrowed the availability of a remand for non-compliance with the pre-dismissal notice requirement of Rule of Criminal Procedure 909(B)(2)(a). See Commonwealth v. Rush, 576 Pa. 3, 838 A.2d 651, 2003 WL 22970873 (Dec. 18, 2003).

. Notably, Appellant specifically challenged the adequacy of PCRA court’s notice of intention to dismiss the petition without a hearing, which stated that "the issues contained in the PCRA petition filed by your attorney are not genuine issues concerning any material fact(s), have been previously litigated and/or have been waived.” Contrary to the suggestion in the majority opinion, such non-specific notices are inadequate. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 909(B)(2)(a) (requiring that "the judge shall give notice to the parties of the intention to dismiss the petition and shall state in the notice the reasons for dismissal”); Williams, 566 Pa. at 569, 782 A.2d at 527 (observing that, "where dismissal is deemed the appropriate course, the court must obviously provide sufficiently specific reasons for the disposition such that the potential for amendment may be reasonably evaluated by counsel” and holding that a notice indicating only that "the issues raised in the PCRA Petition filed by your attorney are without merit” was inadequate).

. The death penalty statute has since been amended to permit consideration of victim impact evidence by the jury in weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.