Commonwealth v. Tharp
101 A.3d 736
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Appellant Michelle Tharp was convicted of first degree murder for starving her seven-year-old daughter Tausha to death.
- Tausha suffered from prematurity-related health issues; only Tausha was severely neglected among Tharp’s children.
- Witnesses observed repeated food denial and abuse, and CYS reports were repeatedly made.
- Tharp’s accomplice, Douglas Bittinger, and prosecution witnesses testified at trial; some faced death penalties.
- The jury found one aggravator (victim under 12) and two mitigators, leading to a death sentence plus a consecutive endangering- welfare/abuse conviction.
- PCRA proceedings yielded mixed results; the PCRA court denied guilt-phase relief but granted a new penalty hearing on mental-health mitigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation regarding withheld evidence | Tharp | Commonwealth | PCRA court findings upheld; no prejudicial nondisclosure shown. |
| Conflict of interest affecting counsel performance | Tharp | No actual conflict prejudicing trial | No prejudice shown; successive representation not enough for relief. |
| Failure to present diminished capacity defense | Tharp | No admission of guilt; diminished capacity not viable | Courts denied merit; no viable diminished-capacity basis. |
| Failure to present mitigation at penalty phase | Tharp | Mitigation evidence would be cumulative/unlikely to change outcome | New penalty hearing required; mental-health mitigation could alter result. |
| Cumulative error in guilt phase | Tharp | Individual errors insufficient | No cumulative-error relief; however, penalty-phase issue warranted remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Weiss, 986 A.2d 808 (Pa. 2009) (Brady prejudice standard; impeachment evidence analyzed for impact on guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2012) (Brady withholding analysis; credibility of witness concerns)
- Commonwealth v. Gibson, 19 A.3d 512 (Pa. 2011) (Penalty mitigation prejudice standard in capital cases)
- Commonwealth v. Lesko, 15 A.3d 345 (Pa. 2011) (Reasonableness of mitigation investigation; qualitative approach favored)
- Commonwealth v. Rios, 920 A.2d 790 (Pa. 2007) (Catchall mitigation evidence weighing; qualitative prejudice consideration)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 812 A.2d 539 (Pa. 2002) (Precedent on catchall mitigation and prejudice standard)
- Commonwealth v. Keaton, 45 A.3d 1050 (Pa. 2012) (Neurological/mental-health mitigation; prejudice to life-sentence outcome)
- Commonwealth v. Ligons, 971 A.2d 1125 (Pa. 2009) (Prejudice showing in mitigation-weighing context)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (Counsel duty; procedural trial-stage considerations)