Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0002605-2009 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : RICKY L. MILLER, JR. : CP-21-CR-2605-2009 IN RE: DEFENDANT’S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., August 3, 2011:-- Before the court is the omnibus pretrial motion filed by Defendant, Ricky L. Miller. Relevant here, Defendant is charged with first degree murder and the Commonwealth is seeking the death penalty. In his motion, Defendant seeks to preclude the Commonwealth from selecting a death qualified jury and from seeking the death penalty. In a capital case, the Commonwealth possesses the initial discretion whether to seek the death penalty. Commonwealth v. Buck, 709 A.2d 892, 896 (Pa. 1998). This discretion, though broad, is not unlimited. Id. Specifically, such a prosecution must be supported by a Notice of Aggravating Circumstances at the time of the Defendant's arraignment. Pa. R. Crim. P. 802. If the notice "includes at least one aggravating factor that is supported by any evidence, the case is properly framed as a capital case." Buck, 709 A.2d at 896. Here, the Commonwealth contends, "[i]n the commission of the offense the [D]efendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to the victim of the offense." See Notice of Aggravating Circumstances, April 15, 2010; 42 Pa. C.S. §9711(d)(7). Specifically, the Commonwealth asserts that the Defendant "used a deadly weapon (a 9mm Glock handgun) on a vital CP-21-CR-2605-2009 part of the victim's body (his brain) and shot into an enclosed space within inches of four other people including the [D]efendant's estranged wife and three small children." Commonwealth's Ans. to Def.'s Omnibus Pretrial Motion at ¶7. For his part, the Defendant first notes the coroner's testimony that based upon evidence of stippling around the wound the maximum distance from the barrel of the gun to the point of entry was two to three feet. Additionally, he notes his own statement that he pointed the gun inside the driver's window past his wife and aimed at the victim specifically close enough so no one else would get hurt. See Def.'s Omnibus Pretrial Motion at ¶6. As such, he argues the Commonwealth has failed to present evidence that he knowingly placed others at grave risk of death during the shooting. We disagree. As previously stated, the Commonwealth's burden at this stage is modest. So long as it presents any evidence supporting an aggravating factor, the capital case is made out. This court has no power to weigh the competing evidence presented by the Defendant to support his contention that he was in such proximity to the victim and exercised such care in shooting him that his estranged wife and children were not in grave danger. Further, on direct appeal of capital convictions, our Supreme Court has found sufficient evidence of this aggravating factor even when the endangered bystander is not directly in the line of fire, stating: The potential for an errant, ricochet or pass-through bullet can create the requisite risk. Commonwealth v. Smith, 518 Pa. 15, 45, 540 A.2d 246, 260 (1988). In Commonwealth v. Watson, 523 Pa. 51, 565 A.2d 132 (1989), we found that the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another when he fired into a -2- CP-21-CR-2605-2009 closet where he knew a child was hiding, although the child escaped injury. Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Griffin, 511 Pa. 553, 515 A.2d 865 (1986), we found that the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to others when he shot the victim in the head at close range during a party, although no one else was injured. Commonwealth v. Rios, 684 A.2d 1025, 1037 (Pa. 1996) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). We find that the Commonwealth has presented evidence that the Defendant placed his estranged wife and children in a similar grave danger by shooting the victim at close range inside a closed vehicle. Accordingly, the Commonwealth has supplied sufficient prima facie proof of an aggravating circumstance permitting it to seek the death penalty. Defendant also maintains he should not face the death penalty as capital punishment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of both the Pennsylvania and United States constitutions. As Defendant acknowledges, our courts disagree. As any other statute, Pennsylvania's death penalty law enjoys a presumption of constitutionality and can be declared unconstitutional only “if it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution.” Erfer v. Commonwealth, 794 A.2d 325, 331 (Pa. 2002). Our death penalty statute has survived numerous previous constitutional challenges, and both the United States Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have upheld its constitutionality under federal and state law. See Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U.S. 299, 308-309, (1990); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 681 A.2d 130, 146 (Pa. 1996). In light of this binding precedent, Defendant's contention lacks merit. -3- CP-21-CR-2605-2009 For all these reasons, Defendant's pretrial motion to preclude the Commonwealth from selecting a death qualified jury due to insufficient prima facie proof of aggravating circumstances and due to the unconstitutionality of the death penalty is denied. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of August, 2011, upon consideration of Defendant’s omnibus pretrial motion, briefing and argument thereon, the motion DENIED. is By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. David J. Freed, Esquire District Attorney Heidi F. Eakin, Esquire Special Assistant Public Defender For Defendant :saa -4- COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : RICKY L. MILLER, JR. : CP-21-CR-2605-2009 IN RE: DEFENDANT’S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of August, 2011, upon consideration of Defendant’s omnibus pretrial motion, briefing and argument thereon, the motion DENIED. is By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. David J. Freed, Esquire District Attorney Heidi F. Eakin, Esquire Special Assistant Public Defender For Defendant :saa