Commonwealth v. DeJesus
58 A.3d 62
Pa.2012Background
- This is a capital-postconviction case where the Commonwealth seeks to reopen the record to present new Atkins-related evidence and DeJesus cross-appeals various PCRA claims.
- The PCRA court found DeJesus mentally retarded under Miller/Sanchez and vacated his death sentences but denied further relief.
- Hearings spanned 12 days (2006–2007) with multiple mental-health experts and lay witnesses presenting divergent views on mental retardation.
- The Commonwealth contends the Atkins standard should be clarified and that new evidence undermines the retardation finding.
- In May 2007 the Commonwealth moved to reopen on the basis of cell-phone smuggling and related evidence; the motion was denied in July 2007, with the court not addressing the new material.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately vacates the PCRA court’s ruling, holds the court abused its discretion in not reopening, and remands for further Atkins proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Atkins standard should be recalibrated for collateral review | Commonwealth urges clear/convincing evidence or Briseno factors | DeJesus resists altering Miller/Sanchez; preponderance standard appropriate | Preponderance standard reaffirmed; Briseno factors may be used flexibly, but standard not heightened |
| Whether the Commonwealth’s motion to reopen the record should have been granted | New cell-phone evidence undermines the Atkins claim | New evidence is potentially probative and not cumulative; reopening necessary for substantial justice | PCRA court abused discretion in denying reopening; remand for further Atkins proceedings consistent with the opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 839 A.2d 202 (Pa. 2003) (set Atkins claim on collateral review; preponderance standard; directed record development)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 888 A.2d 624 (Pa. 2005) (adopted clinical definitions and preponderance standard for Atkins claims)
- Commonwealth v. Crawley, 924 A.2d 611 (Pa. 2007) (reaffirmed Miller regarding Atkins on collateral review)
- Commonwealth v. Bracey, 986 A.2d 128 (Pa. 2009) (discussed jury vs. judge for Atkins on collateral review; Briseno factors referenced)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2011) (reaffirmed burden and process for Atkins determinations; preponderance standard)
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 839 A.2d 202 (Pa. 2003) (initial approach to Atkins collateral review; directs directed record development)
- Tharp, 575 A.2d 557 (Pa. 1990) (trial court reopening discretion; factors to consider)