Commonwealth v. Murray
623 Pa. 506
| Pa. | 2013Background
- In Jan. 2005 Harold Murray, IV (Appellant), with co-defendants, hunted down and killed Shawne Mims and Jennifer Pennington; Pennington’s unborn child also died. Murray was arrested and charged with three counts of first‑degree murder and related offenses.
- Murray was tried (second trial in 2009) with experienced counsel Daniel‑Paul Alva as lead guilt‑phase counsel; a dispute arose about Alva’s compliance with Pa. R.Crim.P. 801 (capital counsel CLE/experience requirements).
- The jury convicted Murray of three first‑degree murders. During the penalty phase the jury returned death sentences for Pennington and her unborn child; it deadlocked as to Mims and sentenced life without parole for that murder.
- The trial court later vacated the death sentence for the unborn child because 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(a)(2) does not permit death for an unborn child, and imposed life for that count; Murray appealed the remaining death sentence for Pennington.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the convictions, rejected several evidentiary and procedural claims, but concluded the erroneous submission of the unborn‑child death as death‑eligible tainted the penalty proceeding and vacated the death sentence for Pennington and remanded for a new penalty hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for first‑degree murder of Pennington (accomplice theory) | Evidence insufficient to show Murray had specific intent/role as accomplice | Cell‑phone, key‑card records, Sadler’s grand jury statements, eyewitness and ballistics evidence support accomplice liability | Conviction affirmed; evidence sufficient to support first‑degree murder on accomplice theory |
| Pa. R.Crim.P. 801 compliance: was Attorney Alva qualified to serve as guilt‑phase counsel? | Alva equivocated about CLE credits and had been removed earlier; trial court’s ruling was unsupported and possibly tainted by ex parte judge consultation | Alva had at least the 6 CLE credits required at time of entry; judge‑to‑judge consultation is not an ex parte communication; claim waived but decided on merits | Trial court’s factual finding sustained; no reversible error found on Rule 801 issue |
| Admission of inflammatory victim photographs and Pennington’s alleged "excited utterance" | Photographs admission required an explicit need balancing; excited utterance lacked foundational showing | Trial court performed balancing and limited publication; surrounding circumstances supported excited‑utterance exception | No abuse of discretion in admitting photos or the hearsay exception for Pennington’s statement |
| Penalty‑phase error: submission of unborn‑child murder as death‑eligible and effect on Pennington death sentence | Submission of unborn child as death‑eligible misled jury and may have influenced the death verdict for Pennington; violated reliability requirements under Gregg/Caldwell/Mills | Even if erroneous, evidence of unborn‑child death still could be considered as aggravator for Pennington; jury instructions and verdicts as to Pennington were proper; error harmless | Death sentence for Pennington vacated; court found the jury was actually misinformed as to availability of death for the unborn child and that error could have affected the Pennington death verdict — remand for new penalty hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24 (Pa. 2011) (review of sufficiency in capital direct appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 454 A.2d 937 (Pa. 1982) (capital review principles)
- Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 956 A.2d 926 (Pa. 2008) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (specific intent may be proven circumstantially)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017 (Pa. 2012) (analysis for admissibility of photographs and balancing test)
- Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519 (Pa. 2003) (photograph admissibility framework)
- Commonwealth v. Fahy, 516 A.2d 689 (Pa. 1986) (factfinder credibility deference)
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1976) (procedural safeguards required in capital sentencing)
- Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (U.S. 1985) (jury not to be misled about its role in capital sentencing)
- Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1988) (remand required if there is substantial risk jury was misinformed)