Commonwealth v. Diamond
623 Pa. 475
| Pa. | 2013Background
- In 2008 Robert Diamond fatally shot two Simon & Schuster employees (Angel Guadalupe and Reginald Woodson) during a short rampage in the company parking lot; he recorded a “last will and testament” and left a written note expressing racial animus and intent to seek revenge.
- Diamond was arrested at the scene after admitting the shootings to police; evidence included eyewitnesses, surveillance video, the murder weapon, autopsies, the audio recording, and the written note.
- Diamond entered open guilty pleas to two counts of first-degree murder and related charges; because the Commonwealth sought death, the matter proceeded to a penalty hearing before the trial judge.
- The trial court found the multiple-murder aggravator (42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(11)) as to both counts, and the grave-risk aggravator (§ 9711(d)(7)) as to Woodson’s murder; it found limited mitigation (extreme mental/emotional disturbance and a catchall mitigator) and imposed death sentences for both murders.
- On direct appeal Diamond challenged sufficiency of evidence for first-degree murder, the application of the aggravators, the court’s failure to find other mitigating factors (notably § 9711(e)(3)), weighting of aggravation vs. mitigation, and that the death sentences were arbitrary.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed: evidence supported first-degree convictions; both aggravators were properly applied; the court permissibly weighed and discounted mitigation; several penalty-phase claims were waived; the death sentences were not arbitrary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for two first‑degree murder convictions | Diamond argued (generally contested) whether the evidence established intent/premeditation for first‑degree murder | Commonwealth relied on eyewitnesses, confessions, ballistics, autopsies, recording and written note to establish deliberate, intentional killings | Affirmed: evidence (including confessions and video) was sufficient to support first‑degree convictions |
| Applicability of § 9711(d)(11) multiple‑murder aggravator to the first killing (Guadalupe) | Diamond urged strict construction: the aggravator should not apply to the first killing because the other murder occurred after it | Commonwealth & trial court: statute refers to murders "committed before or at the time of" the offense; both murders occurred within minutes during the same criminal episode so the aggravator applies to each count | Affirmed: (d)(11) applies to both murders committed in the same criminal episode |
| Sufficiency and constitutionality of § 9711(d)(7) grave‑risk aggravator | Diamond contended record did not show others were in the zone of danger or that he "knowingly" created grave risk; argued court relied on plea rather than evidence | Commonwealth cited testimony (employees in doorway/loading dock, 29‑yard shot, ballistics) showing others were endangered and Diamond knew the work shift patterns | Affirmed: sufficient evidence that Diamond knowingly created grave risk to others; court properly evaluated evidence and did not rely solely on plea |
| Weight of mitigation and arbitrariness of death sentences | Diamond argued expert psychiatric testimony and life‑history evidence established § 9711(e)(3) and deserved greater weight; claimed trial court ignored mitigation, used lack of remorse as nonstatutory aggravator, admitted improper victim impact evidence, and erred on § 9711(e)(1) for Woodson count | Commonwealth: fact‑finder may accept or reject mitigation; trial court considered mitigation, found some (e.g., extreme disturbance, catchall) but rejected § 9711(e)(3); several specific claims were waived for failure to raise in Rule 1925(b) | Affirmed: trial court permissibly weighed mitigation (defendant bears preponderance burden); waived claims dismissed; statutory arbitrariness review finds sentences not product of passion, prejudice, or other arbitrary factor |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 454 A.2d 937 (Pa. 1982) (review of sufficiency in capital cases)
- Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380 (Pa. 2013) (upholding application of multiple‑murder aggravator to killings in single episode; appellate limits on reweighing mitigation)
- Commonwealth v. Flor, 998 A.2d 606 (Pa. 2010) (fact‑finder may reject mitigation; appellate court will not substitute its judgment)
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 960 A.2d 59 (Pa. 2008) (application of § 9711(d)(11) where multiple murders occurred in short span)
- Commonwealth v. Paolello, 665 A.2d 439 (Pa. 1995) (grave‑risk aggravator requires nexus to zone of danger; proximity of others supports aggravator)
- Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (circumstantial evidence, use of deadly weapon, and vital‑body‑part wounds support specific intent to kill)
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (sentencer must consider mitigating evidence and may not ignore it)