Commonwealth v. May, 31 A.3d 668

In 1988, Kathy Lynn Fair's skeletal remains were found buried; forensic pathologist attributed death to multiple stab wounds likely with a knife.
May was arrested in 1990 and charged with Fair's murder and separately with 1982 assaults on GS and SS.
First penalty phase: one aggravating factor for rape during the killing and one mitigating factor; death sentence imposed, later reversed because rape elements were not properly instructed.
Second penalty phase: jury found a significant history of violent felonies as the aggravator and no mitigating factors; death sentence affirmed on direct appeal.
On PCRA remand, trial counsel was found ineffective for failing to challenge mitigating evidence; May received a third penalty phase resulting in a death sentence.
On appeal for the third penalty phase, May challenged shackling, parole instruction, the significant history aggravator, and claims of passion/arbitrariness; the court affirmed the death sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Shackling during penalty phase violated due process	May claims shackling tainted jury deliberation at penalty phase.	Commonwealth contends waiver; no objection during trial; shackling permissible to maintain order.	Waived; no due process violation.
Parole instruction violated due process/Eighth Amendment	May argues parole guidance misled jury about consequences of life sentence.	Commonwealth asserts error waived for lack of objection; instruction appropriate.	Waived; no constitutional violation established.
Significant history aggravator is unconstitutionally vague as applied	May contends aggravator based on post-offense convictions renders death penalty unconstitutional ex post facto/due process.	Commonwealth maintains significant history is valid; aligns with precedent; post-offense convictions properly considered.	Not unconstitutionally vague; valid aggravator supported by precedent.
Death sentence was product of passion, prejudice, or arbitrary factors	May asserts prosecutorial comments, misleading mitigation labeling, and shackling show arbitrariness.	Commonwealth argues issues were waived; claims arise from trial strategy and do not show arbitrariness.	Waived; even considering merits, statutory review found not the product of passion/arbitrary factors.

Commonwealth v. Smith, 604 Pa. 126, 985 A.2d 886 (2009) (shackling may affect penalty phase; court has authority to restrain when warranted)
Commonwealth v. Chester, 526 Pa. 578, 587 A.2d 1367 (1991) (court may restrain defendant to maintain order)
Commonwealth v. Reid, 537 Pa. 167, 642 A.2d 453 (1994) (significant history aggravator involves defendant's history regardless of timing)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (juries must find aggravating facts beyond a reasonable doubt)
Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101 (2003) (jury must determine aggravating circumstances; double jeopardy implications)
Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967 (1994) (sentencing may include backward and forward-looking inquiries to guide discretion)
Commonwealth v. Fahy, 512 Pa. 298, 516 A.2d 689 (1986) (significant history phrase not unconstitutionally vague)
Commonwealth v. Beasley, 504 Pa. 485, 475 A.2d 730 (1984) (significant history aggravator not unconstitutionally vague)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 604 Pa. 176, 985 A.2d 915 (2009) (post-homicide convictions can support the significant history aggravator)
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 602 Pa. 224, 980 A.2d 35 (2009) (waivers and ineffective assistance claims; limits on reviewing waived issues)
Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (2002) (ineffective-assistance claims generally must be raised in collateral review)
Commonwealth v. Lesko, Pa. , 15 A.3d 345 (2011) (standard for ineffective assistance claims in appeal)