Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 5/5/26 Zak Goldstein 5/5/26

PA Supreme Court: “Malice Is Malice” — No Heightened Standard for Third-Degree Murder in DUI Cases

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Peters, affirming the defendant’s convictions for third-degree murder and aggravated assault arising out of a fatal DUI crash on Interstate 95 and rejecting the argument that DUI cases are governed by a heightened, “essentially certain to occur” standard for malice. The Court held, in the words of Justice Dougherty’s majority opinion, that “malice is malice,” meaning the same long-standing standard from Commonwealth v. Taylor applies regardless of whether the defendant drove drunk, fired a gun, or engaged in some other reckless conduct.

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Peters

The defendant attended an office holiday party at Ruth’s Chris Steak House in Philadelphia on December 5, 2019. The open bar started at 5:00 p.m., and the defendant drank vodka in a private room until around 8:00 p.m., when he and his coworkers moved to the public bar and he switched to bourbon. Around 10:00 p.m., a coworker offered the defendant a ride home. He declined, and instead asked her to drop him at another bar called Rogue’s Gallery, where he continued drinking beer until midnight.

The defendant had driven his Mazda SUV to work that day. Surveillance footage from the parking garage showed that he had trouble operating the payment kiosk and could not exit the garage normally — when the mechanical arm did not lift, he got out, manually forced one of the arms up, and broke it in the process before driving away with the broken arm dangling behind him.

Once on Interstate 95, the defendant straddled the fog line, exited into New Jersey without using a turn signal, then turned around and re-entered Pennsylvania. Two motorists called 911 to report that the Mazda was passing at high speed, alternating between excessive speeds and speeds well below the limit, and that the taillights were off. Around 1:00 a.m., the defendant crashed into the rear of a Mazda driven by Juan Tavarez, who was driving home from work in the right lane at or just below the 55 mile-per-hour limit, with his flashers on, with three passengers in the car. Tavarez’s car hit a concrete wall and burst into flames. Tavarez and his son Charlys escaped. His other son, Juan Jose Tavarez Santelises, and his coworker, Claribel Dominguez, did not. Both died from thermal burns.

Black box data showed the defendant was driving 113 miles per hour five seconds before the crash and accelerated to 115 miles per hour half a second before impact. He braked, at most, four-tenths of a second before the crash. His blood alcohol concentration was .151, nearly twice the legal limit of .08. At trial, the defendant testified that he had unbuckled his seatbelt and reached for his phone in his backpack on the passenger-side floor because he wanted to check the GPS, and only looked up in time to see the other car.

A Bucks County jury convicted the defendant of fourteen offenses, including two counts each of third-degree murder and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 19½ to 39 years in state prison. An en banc Superior Court affirmed, with three judges dissenting.

The Issue: Is There a Different “Malice” Standard for DUI Cases?

The defendant argued on appeal that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Commonwealth v. O’Hanlon and Commonwealth v. Packer had effectively created a DUI-specific malice standard requiring proof that death or serious bodily injury was not just likely, but “essentially certain to occur.” On his reading, the Superior Court majority improperly relied on the more general formulation — a conscious disregard for an unjustified and extremely high risk that the defendant’s actions might cause death or serious bodily injury — which, in his view, only applied to non-DUI cases.

The Commonwealth, by contrast, argued that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has never created two separate malice standards. There is one definition of malice, drawn from Commonwealth v. Drum and refined in Taylor, and it does not change based on whether the underlying conduct happened to involve alcohol.

The Supreme Court’s Holding: One Standard

A six-Justice majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the Commonwealth and affirmed. Justice Dougherty wrote the opinion, which Chief Justice Todd and Justices Donohue, Wecht, Mundy, and Brobson joined. Justice McCaffery did not participate.

The Court traced the malice standard back to Drum and through Taylor, where a four-Justice majority held that the defendant consciously disregarded an unjustified and extremely high risk that his actions might cause death or serious bodily harm to another, and therefore acted maliciously. The Court then catalogued more than half a century of Supreme Court and Superior Court decisions repeating the same formulation, in both DUI and non-DUI cases.

The Court rejected the defendant’s reading of O’Hanlon. The “essentially certain to occur” language in O’Hanlon, the Court explained, was not a new test for DUI cases; it was simply O’Hanlon’s way of distinguishing ordinary recklessness from the heightened recklessness required for aggravated assault, a statute that has nothing to do with DUI. The Court also pointed out that just four years after O’Hanlon, it relied on the same language in Commonwealth v. Thompson, a shooting case, which would not have made sense if O’Hanlon had really created a DUI-only standard.

The Court read Packer the same way. Although Packer used the “essentially certain to occur” phrase in summarizing O’Hanlon, the Court emphasized that Packer itself ultimately defined malice as a “conscious disregard for an unjustified and extremely high risk that a chosen course of conduct might cause a death or serious personal injury,” and applied that standard, not a separate one, to find malice on Packer’s facts.

The Court therefore restated the rule in plain terms: malice is present if the defendant consciously disregarded an unjustified and extremely high risk that his actions might cause death or serious bodily harm. That standard is the same regardless of whether the defendant drove drunk, fired a gun, or engaged in any other reckless conduct.

Application to the Facts

Applying that standard, the Court held the evidence was sufficient to support the third-degree murder and aggravated assault convictions.

The Court emphasized several pieces of evidence beyond the simple fact that the defendant drove drunk, which the Court reaffirmed is not, standing alone, enough to establish malice. The defendant had been drinking heavily for roughly seven hours. He turned down a coworker’s offer of a ride home. His difficulty operating the payment machine and his decision to break the parking garage gate to get out should have alerted him that he was in no condition to drive. On I-95, he straddled the fog line, alternated between excessive and unusually slow speeds, drove with his taillights off, nearly sideswiped one motorist, and missed his exit twice even though he had lived in the area for six years. Two different motorists found his driving alarming enough to call 911.

Most significant to the Court was the defendant’s decision, while driving 113 miles per hour with a BAC of .151, to unbuckle his seatbelt and rummage on the passenger-side floor for his phone in order to check the GPS. He could have pulled over instead. He did not even slow down. The black box data showed he actually accelerated to 115 miles per hour half a second before the crash. The Court agreed with the Superior Court majority that this conduct virtually guaranteed an accident would occur.

The Court rejected several mitigating arguments. The fact that the defendant tapped the brake at most four-tenths of a second before impact did not break the chain of malice. At 115 miles per hour, the Court observed, the defendant was traveling roughly 168 feet per second, and braking that late was, in the Court’s words, “just as futile as trying to catch a fired bullet.” The defendant’s argument that no one had verbally warned him he was too drunk to drive was also unpersuasive; the Court held that the absence of an explicit warning does not free a defendant to ignore obvious signs that it is unsafe to keep driving. The lack of post-crash belligerence or flight likewise meant little, because the defendant had to be removed from the vehicle and taken to the hospital for a week.

Why This Decision Matters

Peters settles a question that has been bouncing back and forth between the Superior Court and the Supreme Court for years: whether DUI homicide and aggravated assault cases get a heightened mens rea standard. The answer is no. Going forward, the Commonwealth needs to prove the same Taylor-style malice in a fatal DUI case that it would prove in a shooting or beating case — a conscious disregard for an unjustified and extremely high risk of death or serious bodily injury.

That said, the decision should not be read as turning every DUI fatality into a third-degree murder case. The Court reaffirmed that the choice to drive while intoxicated, by itself, does not establish malice. The Court’s analysis of the facts, which included turning down a ride, breaking the garage gate, sustained reckless driving for nearly an hour, near-misses, ignoring 911-worthy warning signs from his own driving, and finally taking his eyes off the road at 113 miles per hour to look for his phone, is what carried the day. Those are the kinds of aggravating, sustained-recklessness facts that the Superior Court has long required for a malice finding in a DUI case under decisions like Commonwealth v. Kling. The result in a more typical impaired-driving fatality, without that level of additional aggravating conduct, may still come out the other way, as in Commonwealth v. Comer, where the impaired defendant’s car rubbed the curb and the accident immediately followed.

Practically, this means that in serious DUI cases, defense counsel needs to focus less on whether there was an explicit verbal “warning” or other formal notice, and more on whether the totality of the conduct really shows the kind of sustained, conscious disregard for risk that the Court found here. Charging decisions, plea negotiations, jury instructions, and sufficiency challenges in vehicular homicide cases will all be shaped by Peters going forward.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

If you or a loved one are facing criminal charges, serving a state sentence in Pennsylvania, or exploring a direct appeal or PCRA petition, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and we have won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court — including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 4/22/26 Zak Goldstein 4/22/26

Attorney Goldstein Wins New Trial in Philadelphia Arson Case — Client Released After More Than a Decade in Prison

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, of Goldstein Mehta LLC, recently won a new trial and a new sentencing hearing for a client, R.H., who had been serving a 15-to-30-year state sentence for arson, conspiracy to commit arson, and recklessly endangering another person. After an evidentiary hearing on Attorney Goldstein’s amended Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted relief on three separate grounds: the failure to call a known defense witness who had previously testified that someone else committed the crime, the failure to impeach the Commonwealth’s only two civilian witnesses with their crimen falsi convictions, and the ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The Court granted both a new trial and, in the alternative, a new sentencing hearing.

After the ruling, the Commonwealth offered R.H. a deal for time served. He accepted, and he is now home with his family after more than a decade in state prison.

The Evidence at Trial

The case involved a January 13, 2007, explosion and fire at a rowhome in North Philadelphia. The fire marshal determined that the fire was intentionally set, and the decedent’s body was found on the first floor of the property. The medical examiner concluded that the decedent had been stabbed and was already dead when the fire occurred.

The Commonwealth’s evidence tying R.H. to the arson was entirely circumstantial. No one identified him as having set the fire. No forensic or physical evidence connected him to the property. He did not make any incriminating statements. The case rested on four pieces of evidence: (1) a prior out-of-court statement from a neighbor that he had seen the co-defendant running from the scene with a man the neighbor identified only as his girlfriend’s boyfriend — presumably R.H.; (2) testimony from a second Commonwealth witness, R.H’s girlfriend, who lived across the street that R.H. had been in her home earlier that morning and that she later saw burns on his hand and face; (3) medical records showing that R.H. was treated at a local hospital for second-degree burns to his hand the following day; and (4) testimony from a then-Philadelphia police officer that, several months later, he had seen R.H. and the co-defendant smoke a marijuana cigar together in a public park.

R.H. was tried three times. The first trial ended in a mistrial due to a confrontation clause violation. At the second trial, the jury acquitted him of first- and second-degree murder but hung on the remaining charges. At the third trial, the jury convicted him of arson, conspiracy to commit arson, and recklessly endangering another person. The trial court then imposed an aggregate sentence of 15 to 30 years’ incarceration followed by 10 years of probation. The sentence was well above the applicable sentencing guideline range.

The PCRA Petition

After his direct appeal was denied and a prior PCRA petition was litigated solely on an issue involving the police officer’s later perjury arrest, R.H. retained Attorney Goldstein. Attorney Goldstein ordered the complete trial transcripts, reviewed the homicide file, and investigated the case. He then filed an objection to the Rule 907 notice of intent to dismiss and a supplemental PCRA petition raising several new ineffective assistance of counsel claims that had never been litigated.

Following an evidentiary hearing and post-hearing briefing, the PCRA Court granted relief.

Failure to Call a Witness Who Had Previously Testified for the Defense

The first ground on which the Court granted relief was trial counsel’s failure to call a defense eyewitness at the third trial. This eyewitness had given a statement to police and testified under oath at the second trial that the man she saw running from the burning property with the co-defendant was not R.H. Instead, it was the co-defendant’s brother. After she testified at the second trial, the jury acquitted R.H. of first- and second-degree murder and hung on the remaining counts.

At the third trial, however, trial counsel did not call this witness. The jury, which never heard her exculpatory testimony, convicted. Under Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 427 (Pa. 2014), a PCRA petitioner can prevail on a failure-to-call-a-witness claim by showing that the witness existed, was available, was known to counsel, was willing to cooperate, and that the absence of the testimony prejudiced the defense. All of those elements were satisfied here. Trial counsel had tried the prior trials, the witness had given a statement and testified under oath, and her testimony directly pointed to someone else as the person seen running from the fire. She was also still willing to testify and appeared for an evidentiary hearing.

Failure to Impeach the Commonwealth’s Civilian Witnesses with Crimen Falsi Convictions

The second ground was trial counsel’s failure to cross-examine the Commonwealth’s civilian witness — the girlfriend — with her crimen falsi convictions, pending charges, and dismissed cases. Under Pa.R.E. 609(a), evidence that a witness has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or false statement “must be admitted” for impeachment purposes. And under Commonwealth v. Evans, 512 A.2d 626 (Pa. 1986), and Commonwealth v. Nolen, 634 A.2d 192 (Pa. 1993), a witness’s pending or recently dismissed charges are generally admissible to show potential bias in favor of the prosecution.

By the time of trial, the girlfriend who lived across the street had a 2011 conviction for tampering with evidence, a 2010 conviction for multiple counts of forgery and theft by deception, and a retail theft arrest from 2013 that had been dismissed while R.H.’s case was pending. None of this was introduced at trial.

As Attorney Goldstein argued, this was not a close case on the impeachment issue. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has granted new trials in circumstantial cases where trial counsel failed to impeach the only witnesses who directly linked the defendant to the crime with available crimen falsi. See Commonwealth v. Baxter, 640 A.2d 1271 (Pa. 1994). The civilian witness was the one of the most important witnesses and ne of the key people who put R.H. anywhere near the scene of the fire. She had serious convictions for dishonesty, and the jury never heard about them.

Sentencing Error

The third ground was trial counsel’s failure to object to the sentencing court’s use of an impermissible sentencing factor and failure to file a post-sentence motion challenging the sentencing court’s undisclosed departure from the guidelines.

With a prior record score of 1 and offense gravity scores of 10 for arson and 9 for conspiracy, the standard range guideline sentences would have led to a minimum aggregate of approximately 7.5 years’ incarceration. Even in the aggravated range, the guidelines would have called for roughly 9.5 years as the minimum. The sentencing court imposed 15 to 30 years.

At sentencing, the record reflected that the court repeatedly focused on the number of children R.H. had. When R.H.’s mitigation witness , the director of a prison rehabilitative program R.H. had completed, attempted to describe the program, the court cut him off to ask how many children R.H. had, to question how R.H. could be described as a caring father when he had children by multiple women, and to share its own personal views about absent fathers. Trial counsel did not object to the court’s reliance on the number of R.H.’s children as an aggravating factor, and he did not file a post-sentence motion challenging the departure from the guidelines.

The governing case law is clear that a sentence is not valid “if the record discloses that the sentencing court may have relied in whole or in part upon an impermissible consideration.” Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 793 (Pa. Super. 2010). The number of children a defendant has and a sentencing judge’s personal views about that is not a proper sentencing factor. And under Commonwealth v. Beatty, 227 A.3d 1277 (Pa. Super. 2020), a sentencing court that departs from the guidelines without acknowledging the departure or placing contemporaneous reasons for the deviation on the record commits reversible error. The record here reflected that the sentencing court never acknowledged the departure at all.

Result

After the PCRA hearing and post-hearing briefing, the Court granted R.H. a new trial based on the ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase and, in the alternative, granted a new sentencing hearing. Rather than relitigate the case, the Commonwealth offered R.H. a negotiated resolution for a sentence of time served. R.H. accepted and was swiftly released.

Facing a criminal appeal or PCRA petition in Pennsylvania?

Zak Goldstein 3/27/26 Zak Goldstein 3/27/26

PA Supreme Court: Prosecutorial Misconduct to Call a Witness the Prosecution Knows Will Refuse to Testify

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Belgrave, No. 31 WAP 2024 (Pa. March 26, 2026), holding that it is prosecutorial misconduct to call a witness to testify before a jury when the prosecution knows in advance that the witness intends to refuse to answer questions. The Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision, vacated the defendant’s judgment of sentence, and remanded for a new trial. The opinion was authored by Justice Wecht and joined by every member of the Court.

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Belgrave

The Court summarized the facts as follows: the charges in this case arose from a drug sale at a Marriott Hotel in Erie, Pennsylvania, on February 7, 2019, that ended in a gunfight. Four men, including the defendant, drove from Chicago to Erie and rented a hotel room. Hotel surveillance video showed that Belgrave and his associate, Charles Baizar, were parked in a Chevrolet Impala when a dark-colored SUV arrived in the parking lot. Baizar and another man walked toward the SUV, and when Baizar attempted to enter it, the SUV’s driver exited the vehicle and began shooting. Baizar ran, dropping a package. Belgrave exited the Impala and fired two shots in the direction of the SUV. Belgrave was shot and seriously injured.

Police stopped the Impala as it was leaving a nearby parking garage. The package that Baizar dropped during the gunfight contained 239 grams of heroin. Baizar was separately charged with conspiracy to commit PWID and pleaded guilty to conspiracy in December 2019. Belgrave was charged with conspiracy to commit PWID (amended on the eve of trial to PWID), aggravated assault, and other offenses. A jury convicted Belgrave of PWID, reckless endangerment, and carrying a firearm without a license.

The Prosecutorial Misconduct Issue

The central issue in this appeal was the prosecution’s decision to call Baizar to the witness stand at Belgrave’s trial despite knowing in advance that Baizar would refuse to answer any questions. Belgrave’s defense counsel identified this problem early, filing a motion in limine on the eve of trial. The concern was well-founded: Baizar had filed his own Motion to Quash Subpoena the day before Belgrave’s trial began, stating clearly that he had no intention of testifying and intended to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The Commonwealth sought to compel Baizar’s testimony by offering him immunity. But even with immunity, which eliminated any valid Fifth Amendment basis for refusing to testify, Baizar still refused to testify and was subject to contempt sanctions. Despite all of this, the prosecutor went ahead and called Baizar to the stand in front of the jury.

What followed was remarkable. In his opening statement, the prosecutor told the jury to look forward to Baizar’s testimony while simultaneously revealing that Baizar did not want to cooperate. When Baizar took the stand, he refused to answer every substantive question. But the prosecutor pressed on, asking eighteen predominantly leading questions that were loaded with accusations. The prosecutor asserted that Baizar was Belgrave’s cousin, that they came to Erie to sell heroin together, that Baizar had made prior statements to police about the incident, and that Baizar was refusing to testify because he wanted to protect Belgrave. Baizar answered none of the questions. The prosecutor essentially became the de facto testifying witness, putting allegations before the jury in the form of unanswered questions.

The trial court gave a limiting instruction telling the jury that questions are not evidence and that only answers may be considered. But the Supreme Court found this wholly insufficient to cure the prejudice. In closing arguments, the prosecutor doubled down, telling the jury that Baizar knew what happened, knew who was involved, and refused to say anything. He implored the jury to infer facts from an interaction that consisted entirely of unanswered questions.

The Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court engaged in a thorough review of its prior case law governing this issue, beginning with the 1973 cases of Commonwealth v. Terenda, 301 A.2d 625 (Pa. 1973), and Commonwealth v. DuVal, 307 A.2d 229 (Pa. 1973). In Terenda, the Court found it was prejudicial error for the prosecution to call co-indictees to the stand knowing they would invoke the Fifth Amendment. In DuVal, the Court held that summoning a witness with foreknowledge that the witness would invoke the privilege against self-incrimination constitutes prejudicial error in itself, regardless of whether the prosecutor believed the privilege claim would be legally invalid. The DuVal Court explained that the proper procedure is for the prosecution to test the witness’s willingness to testify in advance, outside the jury’s presence, and obtain a ruling before bringing the witness before the jury.

The Superior Court had distinguished Terenda and DuVal on a narrow basis: in those cases, the witnesses expressly invoked the Fifth Amendment in front of the jury, while Baizar simply refused to answer without specifically mentioning the Fifth Amendment. The Superior Court relied on the separate case of Commonwealth v. Todaro, 569 A.2d 333 (Pa. 1990), where this Court found no error when a witness quietly informed the court of his intent to invoke the Fifth Amendment, was excused before the jury, and never appeared again.

The Supreme Court found the analogy to Todaro deeply flawed. In Todaro, the prosecutor did not have advance notice that the witness would refuse to testify, the witness was quickly excused, and no accusatory questions were asked before the jury. In Belgrave, by contrast, everyone knew Baizar would not answer, the prosecutor called him anyway, and then peppered him with leading, accusatory questions designed to plant inculpatory information in the jurors’ minds through the questions themselves.

The Court also rejected the Superior Court’s reasoning that the absence of an express Fifth Amendment invocation before the jury somehow made Baizar’s defiant silence less prejudicial. The Court found that this distinction defied common sense, observing that the prejudicial harm lies in the refusal to deny accusations, which a reasonable juror can treat as an implied admission, and that this harm exists regardless of whether the witness cites a specific legal basis for the refusal.

The Court further held that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s extensive efforts to obtain Baizar’s testimony, including securing immunity directly from the District Attorney, demonstrated how critical the prosecution considered Baizar’s testimony to be. The prosecutor’s repeated emphasis on Baizar’s knowledge and silence, in both opening and closing statements, confirmed this.

The Takeaway

Commonwealth v. Belgrave is a significant decision for criminal defendants in Pennsylvania. It reaffirms and strengthens the rule from DuVal that prosecutors may not call witnesses they know will refuse to answer questions before a jury. The Court made clear that it is the act of summoning the witness, not what happens after the witness takes the stand, that constitutes the misconduct. And it rejected the artificial distinction between an express invocation of the Fifth Amendment and a simple refusal to answer, holding that the prejudice to the defendant is the same either way.

The decision also underscores the obligation of trial courts to resolve these issues before a witness ever appears in front of the jury. As the Court emphasized, citing DuVal and Commonwealth v. Davenport, 308 A.2d 85 (Pa. 1973), the proper procedure is a pre-appearance hearing to assess the witness’s willingness to testify and determine whether the witness’s appearance before the jury would serve any legitimate purpose.

This is a unanimous decision, with all seven justices joining Justice Wecht’s opinion, which gives it particular force as precedent. If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges and believes that the prosecution engaged in misconduct at trial, it is critical to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney who can evaluate whether the issue warrants appellate relief or a new trial.

Facing Criminal Charges or a Wrongful Conviction?

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

If you are facing criminal charges or believe that the prosecution engaged in misconduct in your case, we can help. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our experienced criminal defense lawyers are typically available for same-day phone consultations and in-person meetings so that we can begin investigating your case, obtaining exculpatory evidence, and planning your defense. Call 267-225-2545 for a free criminal defense strategy session.

Zak Goldstein 3/27/26 Zak Goldstein 3/27/26

PA Supreme Court Finds Mandatory Life Without Parole for Second Degree Murder Unconstitutional

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has just issued what may be the most significant criminal sentencing decision in decades. In Commonwealth v. Lee, No. 3 WAP 2024 (Pa. March 26, 2026), the Court held that Pennsylvania’s mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for all second-degree murder (felony murder) convictions violates Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The decision means that every person currently serving a mandatory life-without-parole sentence for felony murder may be entitled to resentencing, and going forward, sentencing courts must conduct an individualized assessment of culpability before imposing a life sentence for felony murder. This is a landmark ruling that will affect potentially thousands of inmates across the Commonwealth. The Court, however, did not clearly rule whether the decision is retroactive. It also stayed the decision for 120 days to give the legislature time to respond and decide whether some other lesser mandatory minimum should apply.

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Lee

The case arose from a 2014 home invasion robbery in the Elliott neighborhood of Pittsburgh. Leonard Butler and Tina Chapple shared a residence with their nine-year-old son. On October 14, 2014, two men, later identified as Derek Lee and Paul Durham, entered the home armed with guns and with partially covered faces. They forced Butler and Chapple into the basement, demanded money, and used a taser on Butler. Lee, described by Chapple as “the meaner one,” pistol-whipped Butler in the face and took his watch before running upstairs. Durham remained with the couple. Butler then began to struggle with Durham over the gun, and during that struggle, a shot was fired that killed Butler.

Lee was charged with homicide, burglary, robbery, and criminal conspiracy. At trial, the jury found Lee guilty of second-degree murder (felony murder), robbery, and conspiracy. Critically, the jury found Lee not guilty of first-degree murder. In other words, the jury specifically rejected the idea that Lee had the intent to kill. Lee was not the shooter; according to the Court’s summary, the fatal shot was fired by Durham during a struggle with the victim while Lee was on a different floor of the house.

Despite the jury’s finding that Lee did not intend to kill anyone, the trial court was required by statute to sentence him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(b), a conviction for second-degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison, and under 61 Pa.C.S. § 6137(a)(1), a person serving a life sentence is ineligible for parole. The sentencing judge had no discretion, meaning they had no ability to consider Lee’s individual role in the crime, his lack of intent to kill, or any other mitigating factors.

What Is Felony Murder?

Under Pennsylvania law, second-degree murder, commonly known as felony murder, is defined as a criminal homicide committed while the defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(b). The qualifying felonies include robbery, rape, arson, burglary, and kidnapping. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(d). Unlike first-degree murder, the Commonwealth does not have to prove that the defendant intended to kill anyone. The only intent required is the intent to commit the underlying felony. The malice necessary to support a murder conviction is constructively inferred from the act of committing the dangerous felony.

This means a person can be convicted of murder and sentenced to die in prison even if they did not pull the trigger, did not intend for anyone to be hurt, and were not even in the same room when the killing occurred. At the time of this decision, only four other states, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Carolina, imposed a similar mandatory life-without-parole sentence for felony murder without exceptions, making Pennsylvania an outlier even among the minority of states that still use the felony murder rule aggressively. This case addressed whether such a sentence would be constitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The Eighth Amendment Claim

The Court first addressed whether mandatory life without parole for felony murder violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court concluded that it does not, at least under current United States Supreme Court precedent. The majority explained that the high Court’s categorical approach, which has been used to bar the death penalty for non-homicide offenses in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), and to bar mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), has not been extended to adult defendants convicted of felony murder. While the appellant relied on cases like Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) (barring the death penalty for felony murder defendants who did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill), the Court found that this line of cases involved capital punishment specifically and has not been applied to life-without-parole sentences for adults.

The Court also considered whether a national consensus has emerged against mandatory life without parole for felony murder under the categorical approach. Noting that the number of states with similar mandatory sentencing schemes is disputed but at least a handful of states still impose such sentences, the Court concluded that a sufficient national consensus has not yet developed to support an Eighth Amendment categorical bar.

The Article I, Section 13 Claim: A Broader State Constitutional Protection

This is where the decision breaks new and critical ground. The Court conducted an independent analysis under Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, applying the four-factor test from Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991), which governs when state constitutional provisions provide broader protections than their federal counterparts. And the Court concluded that Section 13 does provide broader protection in this context.

The key textual distinction is significant: the Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments,” while Article I, Section 13 prohibits “cruel punishments,” without the word “unusual.” This is not merely a semantic difference. The Court reasoned that under the Eighth Amendment’s framework, a punishment must be both cruel and unusual to be unconstitutional. A punishment that is common or widespread among the states, and therefore not “unusual,” may survive Eighth Amendment scrutiny even if it is harsh. But under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the sole question is whether the punishment is “cruel,” regardless of how many other states impose it.

The Court held that imposing a mandatory sentence of life without parole on all felony murder defendants, without any assessment of individual culpability, constitutes a cruel punishment under Article I, Section 13. The statutory scheme treats the person who planned and carried out a killing identically to the person who served as a lookout during a robbery in which an unplanned death occurred. This one-size-fits-all approach is inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Constitution’s protection against cruel punishments.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court traced the history of both the felony murder doctrine and Pennsylvania’s tradition of proportionate sentencing, going back to Pennsylvania’s landmark 1794 statute, the first in the country to divide murder into degrees, which was rooted in Enlightenment-era principles of proportionality promoted by figures like Cesare Beccaria and Benjamin Rush. The Court found that mandatory life without parole for all felony murder offenders, without any opportunity for an individualized assessment of culpability, is fundamentally at odds with this tradition.

The Remedy

The Court vacated Lee’s judgment of sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. However, the Court also stayed its order for 120 days to give the General Assembly an opportunity to enact remedial legislation establishing a new sentencing framework for second-degree murder. This is the same approach the Court has used in other cases where it has struck down a sentencing scheme, such as the juvenile lifer cases following Miller v. Alabama.

The Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

All seven justices participated in the decision, and while the result was unanimous as to the Pennsylvania constitutional holding, several justices wrote separately to elaborate on various points.

Justice Wecht wrote a concurrence providing extensive scholarly analysis of the differences in culpability between first-degree and second-degree murder, emphasizing that the felony murder rule punishes defendants who lack any intent to kill with the same severity as those who deliberately take a life. Justice Wecht also argued that foreign law should be irrelevant to the Pennsylvania constitutional analysis. This was a point of departure from the majority’s broader survey approach.

Justice Dougherty, joined by Justice McCaffery, wrote a concurrence further developing the textual analysis of why Section 13 provides broader protection than the Eighth Amendment. Justice Dougherty emphasized that because mandatory life without parole for felony murder is not “unusual” in that several states still impose it, it cannot violate the Eighth Amendment under current doctrine. But the absence of the word “unusual” from Section 13 means the Pennsylvania Constitution asks a different and more protective question.

Justice Mundy wrote separately to emphasize the limited scope of the holding: it applies only to defendants who did not kill, did not attempt to kill, and did not intend to kill. The decision does not disturb life-without-parole sentences for second-degree murder defendants who were the actual killer or who intended that someone die.

Justice Brobson concurred in the majority’s Edmunds analysis and the holding that mandatory life without parole for all felony murder offenders is unconstitutional under Section 13. However, he dissented in part from the remedy, expressing reservations about the 120-day stay and arguing that the Court should provide more specific guidance to sentencing courts on remand.

The Takeaway

This decision has enormous practical implications for criminal defendants in Pennsylvania. For those currently serving mandatory life-without-parole sentences for second-degree murder, particularly those who were not the actual killer and did not intend to kill, this decision may open the door to resentencing proceedings. Certainly, defendants will most likely want to file PCRA petitions in 120 days when the decision takes effect. It is not yet clear exactly how many inmates will be affected, but it is likely in the thousands, as Pennsylvania has one of the largest populations of people serving life without parole in the country, and a significant number of those individuals were convicted under the felony murder rule. It is not yet clear, however, whether the decision is retroactive to those whose convictions are already final, and this may be the subject of litigation. The Governor, however, has already commented that he supports the decision.

Going forward, the General Assembly will need to establish a new sentencing framework for second-degree murder that allows for individualized consideration of a defendant’s culpability. If the legislature does not act within 120 days, the courts may begin resentencing felony murder defendants without a new statutory framework in place.

For defendants facing felony murder charges now, this decision is critical. Defense attorneys should be raising the issue of individualized sentencing at every stage and arguing that a mandatory life-without-parole sentence cannot be imposed without consideration of the defendant’s specific role in the offense, intent, and other mitigating factors.

Facing Criminal Charges or Appealing a Criminal Case? We Can Help.

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Fraud, and Murder. We have also successfully challenged convictions for murder, firearms charges, rape, and other serious convictions on direct appeal in state and federal court as well as through post-conviction relief act litigation. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. We can also help you navigate your response to the Court’s decision if you have a loved one serving life without parole as a result of a second degree murder conviction. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.