Commonwealth v. Housman, W., Aplt., 226 A.3d 1249

Background

In October 2000 Leslie White was lured to a trailer, bound, gagged and killed; William Housman and Beth Markman were arrested, tried jointly, and convicted of first‑degree murder and related offenses.
At Housman’s penalty phase the jury found one aggravator (killing during felony) and two mitigators and sentenced him to death; this Court affirmed convictions on direct appeal in 2009 and certiorari was denied.
Housman filed a timely PCRA petition alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel at both guilt and penalty phases and sought a new penalty trial and/or new guilt trial.
The PCRA court (after evidentiary hearings) denied guilt‑phase relief but granted a new penalty trial, finding trial counsel failed to investigate and present substantial mitigating evidence (notably psychiatric/childhood treatment records and testimony).
The Commonwealth appealed and Housman cross‑appealed; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the PCRA court’s order granting a new penalty phase but denied guilt‑phase relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Housman)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Admission of prior bad acts / severance	Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to Markman‑sourced bad‑acts evidence; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising federal due‑process claim	Much of the testimony came from Markman’s duress defense; Housman’s own confession and overwhelming properly admitted evidence negated prejudice	No relief: any prejudice de minimis given Housman’s confession and overwhelming guilt evidence; ineffectiveness not shown
Hearsay / Confrontation	Counsel ineffective for failing to object to multiple hearsay statements that supported luring theory	Many alleged instances were not specified; one challenged statement was cumulative of Housman’s confession	Waived except one instance; that instance was cumulative of Housman’s confession so no ineffectiveness shown
Jury instructions (accomplice / conspiracy specific intent)	Charge failed to require proof that Housman personally had specific intent to kill	Instruction mirrored then‑existing Pennsylvania law and later decisions; even if imperfect, Housman’s actions and confession show he was not merely an accomplice	No prejudice: given confession and active participation, jury would not have convicted him solely as accomplice
Penalty‑phase mitigation investigation	Counsel failed to obtain and present Spartanburg mental‑health clinic records, treating clinicians, and detailed childhood abuse evidence; prejudice exists under Strickland	Records and evidence were cumulative of what was presented at trial; counsel relied reasonably on his retained expert	Relief granted: PCRA court correctly found counsel’s investigation unreasonable and prejudice established — vacatur of penalty and new sentencing trial ordered

Key Cases Cited

Housman v. Commonwealth, 986 A.2d 822 (Pa. 2009) (prior appeal addressing severance, confessions, and evidentiary issues)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 786 A.2d 203 (Pa. 2001) (Pennsylvania formulation of Strickland elements)
Commonwealth v. Tharp, 101 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2014) (prejudice analysis where single aggravator v. additional mitigation may change sentence)
Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2011) (counsel obligation to investigate mitigation in capital cases)
Commonwealth v. Daniels, 963 A.2d 409 (Pa. 2009) (jury instruction / accomplice liability and assessment of prejudice in sentencing‑mitigation context)
Commonwealth v. Gibson, 951 A.2d 1110 (Pa. 2008) (comparison of trial and PCRA mitigation records required in close cases)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 196 A.3d 130 (Pa. 2018) (limits on requiring counsel to spot expert ‘red flags’ but reiterates counsel’s duty)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (co‑defendant confession and confrontation clause principles)
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1998) (Bruton redaction rules)
Commonwealth v. Huffman, 638 A.2d 961 (Pa. 1994) (error where accomplice instruction permitted finding specific intent from accomplice’s intent)
Laird v. Horn, 414 F.3d 419 (3d Cir. 2005) (Third Circuit decision on accomplice intent instruction under Pennsylvania law)