Commonwealth v. Banks
29 A.3d 1129
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Banks executed a 1982 shooting spree in Luzerne County, killing 13 people and wounding 1; five child victims were Banks’s own children.
- Banks was convicted of twelve first-degree murders, one third-degree murder, and additional offenses, receiving death sentences on twelve counts.
- An execution warrant was signed in 2004, but amarshalment of competency challenges halted the execution; Banks’s mother filed a next-friend petition seeking a Ford v. Wainwright competency ruling.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 726 to review Banks’s competency-to-be-executed claim and ordered expedited hearings.
- A third competency hearing in 2010, conducted by Judge Augello, found Banks incompetent to be executed under Panetti and Ford standards, and the Court adopted that finding over Commonwealth exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Banks is currently competent to be executed under Ford and Panetti. | Banks’s delusional system ruins rational understanding; competency required. | Commonwealth argues sufficient rational understanding exists and Ford standards are met. | Banks is not currently competent to be executed. |
| What standard of review applies to the trial court’s competency finding. | De novo review should be applied due to extraordinary jurisdiction. | Abuse-of-discretion review should apply; trial court credibility matters. | Abuse-of-discretion review governs; no abuse found in Judge Augello’s findings. |
| Whether Banks has a rational understanding of the death penalty and its reasons. | Banks possesses rational understanding despite delusions; sufficient comprehension. | Banks’s delusions render his understanding irrational and link-to-penalty is invalid. | Banks lacks a rational understanding; incompetent to be executed. |
| Whether Banks has the mental capacity to initiate or designate clemency proceedings. | Banks can understand clemency process and could initiate or designate. | Banks cannot pursue clemency while believing sentences were vacated and thus lacks capacity. | Banks lacks capacity to pursue clemency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1986) (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of the insane; provides framework for competency inquiries)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 934 (U.S. 2007) (Delusions relevant to rational understanding of punishment; mandates rational understanding test)
- In re Heidnik, 554 Pa. 177 (Pa. 1998) (Pennsylvania standard for competency to be executed; preserves presumption of competency with burden on proving incompetence)
- Commonwealth v. Jermyn, 709 A.2d 849 (Pa. 1998) (Pennsylvania test: must comprehend reasons for death penalty or its implications; Ford framework applied in PA)
- Annenberg v. Commonwealth, 757 A.2d 338 (Pa. 2000) (De facto de novo consideration in plenary-review context; respect for trial court credibility findings)