Commonwealth, Aplt v. Hackett, R.
626 Pa. 567
Pa.2014Background
- Hackett was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses for the 1986 killings; death sentence imposed in 1988 and affirmed on direct appeal.
- PCRA petitions were filed in 1997 and later; a remand led to a ruling that Hackett was “mentally retarded” under Miller and Atkins, resulting in vacatur of the death sentence.
- On remand (2011–2012), multiple experts for Hackett testified that he met the Miller/DSM-AAIDD criteria for intellectual disability; the Commonwealth presented Dr. Spangler’s testimony challenging the disability finding.
- The PCRA court credited Hackett’s expert opinions, found a 57 IQ with adaptive functioning deficits, and held Hackett established intellectual disability by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, vacating the PCRA court’s grant of relief and reinstating the death sentence, and declined to adopt a stricter, purely objective Atkins standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hackett proved intellectual disability under Miller | Hackett: preponderance shows limited intellect and adaptive deficits and onset before 18 | Commonwealth: historic scores show no disability; post-Atkins testing unreliable | No; Miller standard not met by substantial evidence |
| Whether Pennsylvania should adopt a more objective Atkins standard | Hackett (via Commonwealth) argues for cutoff I.Q. or formal tools | Commonwealth seeks stricter, objective criteria | Declined to adopt a new objective standard; Miller framework remains controlling |
| Whether Briseno/adaptive-functioning factors should govern retrospective Atkins claims | Hackett asserts Briseno factors support adaptive deficits | Commonwealth disputes overemphasis on retrospective factors | Briseno factors may inform analysis but do not override Miller’s three-prong test; not applicable as controlling standard here |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 585 Pa. 144 (Pa. 2005) (established Miller three-prong standard for Atkins claims: subaverage IQ, adaptive deficits, onset before 18)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (prohibits execution of intellectually disabled individuals)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 619 Pa. 219, 61 A.3d 979 (Pa. 2013) (deferential review of Atkins factual findings; adapts Miller framework)
- Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 619 Pa. 70, 58 A.3d 62 (Pa. 2012) (addresses retrospective Atkins claims and malingerer considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Crawley, 592 Pa. 222, 924 A.2d 612 (Pa. 2007) (eschews misapplication of credibility; defers to PCRA determinations when supported by substantial evidence)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (U.S. 2014) (rejects rigid IQ cutoff; requires consideration of margin of error and adaptive evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 614 Pa. 1, 36 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2011) (articulates procedural framework for Atkins claims in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (seven factors for evaluating adaptive functioning in Atkins-like claims)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 61 A.3d 979 (2013) (see above (reaffirmed deference in Miller framework))