Commonwealth v. Mattison
623 Pa. 174
| Pa. | 2013Background
- On Dec. 9, 2008, Kevin Mattison (Appellant) drove Tiffany Kenney to confront her boyfriend at his apartment; after Kenney and a friend returned to the SUV, Mattison forced entry, pointed a gun, demanded drugs, recovered marijuana, and then shot the victim in the head; the victim died a week later.
- Pavi-Elle Generette witnessed the shooting and later identified Mattison in a photo array and live lineup; Mattison was arrested a month later.
- Mattison had a prior murder conviction in Maryland (1995); the Commonwealth gave notice it would present that conviction as an aggravating circumstance under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(11).
- Trial court denied Mattison’s motion to empanel separate juries for guilt and penalty phases and precluded voir dire that would disclose his prior murder conviction; the same jury heard guilt and, after conviction, sentencing.
- Jury convicted Mattison of first-degree murder, two robberies, and burglary; during the penalty phase the jury found two aggravators (felony murder and prior murder) and one catchall mitigator (relationship with family) and sentenced him to death; trial court also imposed consecutive terms for the felonies.
- Mattison appealed raising sufficiency, evidentiary, voir dire/bifurcation, jury instruction/verdict slip, double-counting/double jeopardy, and sentencing claims; the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellant) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for 1st-degree murder | Mattison claimed evidence didn’t prove he inflicted the fatal shot; suggested Kenney or Generette committed it | Witness testimony (Generette) established Mattison shot victim at close range; circumstantial inferences support intent | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for first-degree murder |
| Sufficiency for robbery and burglary | Argued lack of physical entry evidence and items left behind; challenged convictions | Commonwealth argued these sufficiency claims were waived for failure to include them in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement | Waived on appeal; not considered on merits |
| Spousal confidential communications privilege (42 Pa.C.S. § 5914) | Wife’s testimony about observations (shoe box absence; change of sweatshirt) should be privileged | Testimony was non-confidential observation, not a communication conveying a message; privilege doesn’t cover mere observations | Affirmed: privilege not violated; observations admissible |
| Voir dire preclusion and bifurcation (life-qualification) | Precluding questions that would reveal prior murder conviction prevented proper life-qualification; requested separate juries | Court has discretion over voir dire; revealing prior conviction risks prejudicing guilt phase; same jury for guilt and penalty is required by statute | Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion; denial of bifurcation proper; life-qualification adequately conducted |
| Penalty-phase instruction and verdict slip (catchall mitigation) | Court should have instructed and listed each specific mitigating fact and shown them on the verdict slip | Trial court instructed on statutory mitigators and catchall (§9711(e)(8)); no restriction on mitigation presentation; verdict slip complied with rules | Affirmed: instructions and verdict slip sufficient; no violation of mitigation rights |
| Double-counting/double jeopardy re: sentencing for robbery and burglary | Trial court used the same killing-factor (felony murder) to justify guideline departures and consecutive maximum sentences | Sentencing Guidelines are advisory; aggravating circumstances are not separate punishments triggering double jeopardy protection | Affirmed: no Double Jeopardy violation; sentencing within statutory bounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 960 A.2d 59 (discusses automatic appellate sufficiency review in death penalty cases)
- Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 454 A.2d 937 (standards for first-degree murder review)
- Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (specific intent inference from weapon use to vital part of body)
- Commonwealth v. Chiappini, 782 A.2d 490 (spousal privilege does not extend to mere observations)
- Commonwealth v. King, 721 A.2d 763 (penalty-phase instruction on mitigation and consideration of non-statutory mitigators)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 746 A.2d 592 (verdict slip form complies with rules; catchall mitigator covers presented evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 861 A.2d 898 (aggravating circumstances are not separate punishments for double jeopardy purposes)
- Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (double jeopardy and cumulative punishments context)
- Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (right to impartial jury)