241 A.3d 620
Pa.2020Background
- In February 2010 Knight and several co‑defendants abducted, tortured, raped, drugged, and ultimately killed Jennifer Daugherty, an intellectually disabled 30‑year‑old; her body was bound with Christmas lights, placed in a trash can and abandoned under a truck.
- Knight pleaded guilty to first‑degree murder, second‑degree murder, conspiracy, kidnapping and related charges; his first penalty trial resulted in a death recommendation but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered a new penalty trial because the trial court failed to instruct the jury to find the uncontested (e)(1) mitigator (no significant prior convictions).
- At the second penalty trial the Commonwealth pursued two aggravators: (d)(6) killing during the perpetration of a felony (kidnapping/aggravated assault) and (d)(8) killing by means of torture; the jury found those aggravators and recommended death.
- The jury found three mitigators: (e)(1) no significant criminal history, (e)(2) extreme mental or emotional disturbance, and (e)(5) acting under duress/substantial dominion; the trial court imposed death pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(c)(1)(iv).
- On appeal Knight raised multiple challenges (constitutionality of the death penalty, denial of an Atkins jury instruction, voir dire format, photo admission, jury charge issues, and others); the Court in large part found many claims waived and affirmed the death sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Knight's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Pennsylvania's death penalty | Death penalty is cruel, unconstitutional under federal and state constitutions; Court should abolish or find statute unconstitutional | Statute previously upheld (Zettlemoyer); Knight failed to develop argument and largely incorporated other briefs; issue waived | Waived for inadequate briefing; claim rejected |
| Atkins instruction (intellectual disability) | Requested Atkins jury instruction because of adaptive deficits and IQ evidence; Hall/Moore counsel to revisit IQ thresholds | Knight failed to present documented IQ ≤75 before age 18 and experts conceded he did not meet Miller/Sanchez standard | Denial affirmed: no competent evidence under Miller/Sanchez to require Atkins instruction |
| Jury finding multiple (d)(6) aggravators / double‑counting | Jury improperly found multiple (d)(6) aggravators (kidnapping and aggravated assault) and effectively counted one aggravator twice | Verdict form submitted separate felonies; Commonwealth noted it had alleged felonies; no reversible error | Waived (not raised in Rule 1925(b) and no timely objection); claim rejected |
| Reading expert report verbatim in closing | Trial court improperly barred counsel from reading Dr. Nezu’s report during closing — prejudiced defense | Court permitted summarization; reading report was objected to and defense said it would summarize anyway | Waived (no objection to ruling; argument undeveloped); no reversible error |
| Allen/Spencer instruction (deadlocked jury) | Court should have given a specific inquiry about hopeless deadlock or different instruction; denial prejudiced defendant | Trial court provided an instruction to continue deliberations (Spencer‑style); no record request by defense for different relief | Waived (no request preserved in trial court); court’s Spencer‑style instruction proper |
| Colorado method voir dire / life‑qualify jury | Denial of Colorado voir dire prevented identification of jurors who would give meaningful effect to mitigators; deprived life‑qualified jury | Court ruled on individual questions; general voir dire and counsel’s follow‑up questions covered penalty views; the method isn’t required | Denial not error: trial court within discretion; counsel questioned jurors on ability to weigh aggravation/mitigation |
| Admission and sending autopsy photos to jury | Graphic color photos were inflammatory and prejudicial; should not have been sent to jury during deliberations | Photos relevant to showing how body was concealed, restraints, and nature of torture; trial court limited more graphic photos and cautioned jury | Admission and sending of four challenged photos upheld: they had evidentiary value and were not gruesome close‑ups |
| Victim‑impact jury instruction | Instruction (Pa. SSJI 15.2502F.7) improperly allowed victim impact to influence weighing, risking passion/prejudice | Instruction followed suggested standard; defense failed to object at trial or in post‑sentence motion | Waived (no contemporaneous objection); instruction affirmed |
| Statutory review: sentence product of passion or weight of evidence | Death verdict resulted from passion/prejudice (photos, victim impact) and against the weight of evidence (IQ/mitigators) | Jury found aggravators beyond reasonable doubt and weighed mitigators; Court’s review limited by §9711(h)(3) | Independent review: no evidence sentence was product of passion/prejudice; at least two aggravators supported; death sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Knight, 156 A.3d 239 (Pa. 2016) (prior appeal ordering new penalty trial for failure to instruct on uncontested (e)(1) mitigator)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 888 A.2d 624 (Pa. 2005) (Pennsylvania standard for Atkins: interaction of limited intellectual functioning and adaptive deficits; no strict IQ cutoff)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2012) (a colorable Atkins issue must be submitted to the jury only if supported by competent evidence under Miller)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled persons)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (U.S. 2014) (rejected strict IQ cutoff; account for standard error of measurement and consider adaptive functioning)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (U.S. 2017) (courts must consider clinical standards and adaptive‑functioning evidence where IQ adjusted for SEM falls in borderline range)
- Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 454 A.2d 937 (Pa. 1982) (upholding Pennsylvania death penalty statute)
- Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d 291 (Pa. 2011) (appellate briefs cannot incorporate by reference other briefs; undeveloped claims waived)
- Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1992) (standard for excluding jurors for views on capital punishment; adequate voir dire required)
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003) (trial court may limit voir dire to prevent tactics aimed at testing mitigation strategies)
- Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380 (Pa. 2013) (two‑step test for admitting potentially inflammatory victim photographs)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 643 A.2d 1070 (Pa. 1994) (photographs admissible to explain facts and nature of offense)