Commonwealth v. Jones

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed cross-appeals arising from Damon Jones's petition for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act. The court affirmed the denial of a new trial but vacated the grant of a new penalty hearing, addressing claims involving jury instructions, hearsay and confrontation rights, prosecutorial misconduct, waiver, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Holdings

1. Claims not raised in the original or amended PCRA petition are waived, and claims previously litigated or waived under the PCRA are generally not reviewable; however, the court reviewed Jones's inadequately developed ineffective-assistance claims under the procedural approach applicable when his consolidated PCRA petition was filed.
2. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present reasonably available evidence of Jones's mental-health impairments, childhood abuse and neglect, family dysfunction, and related background circumstances supporting the statutory mitigating circumstances in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(3) and (e)(8).
3. Because Jones established that trial counsel was ineffective, the case had to be remanded under McGill to allow him to develop and argue whether appellate counsel had a reasonable basis for failing to challenge trial counsel's mitigation investigation and whether that omission prejudiced Jones.
4. Jones was not entitled to relief on the reviewed claims challenging the transferred-intent and accomplice-liability instructions, excited-utterance evidence, reasonable-doubt instruction, missing voir-dire transcripts, trial-court remarks, criminal information, cumulative error, discovery, or denial of additional hearings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Jones's challenges to jury instructions, hearsay evidence, prosecutorial conduct, missing voir-dire transcripts, trial-court criticism of defense counsel, reasonable doubt, the criminal information, cumulative error, discovery, and an evidentiary hearing warranted PCRA relief.
2. Whether claims that were waived, previously litigated, or inadequately developed were reviewable as claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence supporting the statutory mitigating circumstances in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e)(3) and (e)(8).
4. Whether the Commonwealth waived its argument under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(b) that delay prejudiced its ability to respond to or retry Jones.
5. Whether the matter should be remanded to permit Jones to plead and develop the layered claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge trial counsel's mitigation investigation and presentation.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded