Commonwealth v. Clemons, J., Aplt., 200 A.3d 441

Background

In December 2011 Karissa Kunco obtained a Protection From Abuse (PFA) against Jordan Clemons after an assault; Clemons knew of the PFA and a warrant but was not personally served.
On January 11–12, 2012 Kunco picked up Clemons; surveillance and debit-card use place Clemons driving her car that night and into the early morning.
Kunco's body was found days later in the woods with a deep, fatal throat laceration; her car had been crashed and the back seat was saturated with blood.
DNA/serology linked blood from Kunco to spots on Clemons’ shoes and spermatozoa from Kunco’s vaginal sample predominantly matched Clemons.
Clemons surrendered, made an unsolicited statement to police, later sought suppression and a voluntary-intoxication (diminished-capacity) jury instruction, and was convicted of first-degree murder; jury recommended death and the trial court sentenced him to death.
On direct appeal Clemons challenged sufficiency/weight of evidence, denial of voluntary-intoxication instruction, denial of change of venue for pretrial publicity, denial of suppression, and certain evidentiary rulings; the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Clemons)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for 1st‑degree murder	Commonwealth failed to prove specific intent/premeditation; Facebook contact alone insufficient	Physical evidence (deep throat wound), DNA, blood on shoes, admissions and conduct established identity and intent	Affirmed: evidence sufficient; specific intent inferred from use of deadly weapon on vital part
Weight of the evidence	Verdict against weight — murder was extremely bloody but Clemons had only droplets of blood, so jury verdict shocks conscience	Jury credited admissions and physical evidence; absence of heavy blood on clothing not dispositive	Trial court did not abuse discretion; no new trial warranted
Voluntary‑intoxication / diminished capacity instruction	Evidence of drug paraphernalia, beer cans, eyewitness observations of intoxication warranted instruction reducing to 3rd‑degree murder	No proof Clemons consumed intoxicants before or during killing or was "overwhelmed" so as to lose faculties	Denial affirmed: record lacked evidence he was so intoxicated at time of killing to justify instruction
Change of venue for pretrial publicity	Local online activism, news reports, petitions and events saturated Washington County and required presumed prejudice	Much coverage was factual; many activities localized to Allegheny County; long cooling‑off period (~2.5 years)	Denial affirmed: no presumption of prejudice and defendant did not renew with actual‑prejudice proof at voir dire
Motion to suppress statement	Clemons did not explicitly waive Miranda and was intoxicated so statement involuntary	Statement was spontaneous after Miranda warnings; he later invoked counsel, demonstrating understanding; not too impaired	Denial affirmed: totality shows knowing, voluntary waiver; statement admissible
Evidentiary rulings (probation reference; PFA‑injury photos)	Probation reference implied criminal propensity; PFA photos were cumulative and prejudicial	Probation reference relevant to investigation’s course; photos showed history/escalation of abuse and were not gruesome	Rulings affirmed: relevance outweighed prejudice; curative instruction addressed probation reference; photos admissible under Rule 403 principles

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Reiff, 489 Pa. 12, 413 A.2d 672 (Pa. 1980) (voluntary‑intoxication instruction only where intoxication "overwhelms" faculties)
Commonwealth v. Padilla, 622 Pa. 449, 80 A.3d 1238 (Pa. 2013) (diminished‑capacity instruction standards; consumption evidence insufficient alone)
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 565 Pa. 289, 773 A.2d 131 (Pa. 2001) (specific intent may be inferred from use of deadly weapon on a vital part)
Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 570 Pa. 117, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002) (admissibility of prior PFA evidence to show history/escalation and motive)
Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003) (waiver of Miranda rights may be inferred from words/actions)
Commonwealth v. Spotz, 563 Pa. 269, 759 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 2000) (elements of first‑degree murder)
Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 500 Pa. 16, 454 A.2d 937 (Pa. 1982) (standards for sufficiency review in capital cases)