Commonwealth v. Hairston

249 A.3d 1046

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee

v.Kenneth HAIRSTON, Appellant

No. 786 CAP

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted: July 28, 2020

Decided: April 29, 2021

Thomas N. Farrell, Esq., Farrell & Associates, for Appellant.

Ronald Eisenberg, Esq., Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, Francesco Lino Nepa, Esq., Rushen R. Pettit, Esq., Michael Wayne Streily, Esq., Allegheny County District Attorney's Office, for Appellee.

BAER, C.J., SAYLOR, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE DONOHUE

In this capital PCRA appeal, Kenneth Hairston ("Hairston") challenges the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dismissing his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541 - 9546 ("PCRA"). Hairston requests that this Court grant PCRA relief on his claims, inter alia, that the death penalty is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for allowing the jury to consider a non-statutory aggravating factor in reaching its verdict of death. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the PCRA court's denial of relief.

On direct appeal, this Court described the factual background underlying Hairston's convictions for murdering his wife and son:

On May 21, 2000, [Hairston] arrived at the apartment of his step-daughter, Chetia Hurtt, with a handgun he was not licensed to carry. When he was let into the apartment, [Hairston] threatened to kill Hurtt, her boyfriend, Jeffrey Johnson, who was also present, and himself. After [Hairston] demanded Mr. Johnson leave the apartment, he pointed the gun at Hurtt, pushed her down, and attempted to remove her clothes. Meanwhile, Mr. Johnson informed police about what was occurring, and the police responded immediately.

When they arrived at the apartment, they found [Hairston], half-naked, and recovered his gun. As the police were bringing [Hairston] out of the apartment, he attempted to escape. During the course of the ensuing investigation, Ms. Hurtt informed police that [Hairston] had been assaulting her for years and making threats against her family. She agreed to press charges. As a result of these events, [Hairston] was charged with rape, attempted rape, attempted escape, and related crimes. According to Ms. Hurtt's subsequent testimony, following his arrest [Hairston] threatened to harm himself and his family if Ms. Hurtt revealed his past assaults and persisted in pressing charges.

As the time of [Hairston's] rape trial drew near, [Hairston] acted on his threats. On June 11, 2001, two weeks before his trial for assaulting Ms. Hurtt was scheduled to begin, he directed the school bus company of his autistic teenage son, Sean, not to pick him up for school. Later that day, firefighters responded to a report of smoke coming from the home [Hairston] shared with his wife, Katherine, Sean, and his wife's mother, Goldie Hurtt. When the firefighters gained entry, they discovered that the house was strewn with garbage and debris and the doors were barricaded. Once inside, they discovered Sean on the living room couch, and although they brought him out of the house alive, he later died at the hospital from blunt force trauma to the head. Firefighters discovered Katherine's body in the kitchen, and it was later determined that she too died from blunt force trauma to the head. Goldie Hurtt was rescued from the house, unharmed. [Hairston] was discovered in the kitchen with several self-inflicted puncture wounds to the neck and chest. When emergency responders removed him from the house, he was extremely combative.

At the hospital, [Hairston] indicated that he had killed his wife and started the fire, and that his motivation for doing so was anxiety and outrage over the pending rape allegations and imminent trial on these charges. Eight days later, on June 19, 2001, [Hairston] further explained that he bludgeoned his wife and son with a sledgehammer, left the house with the weapon and went to a local bar, where he consumed several drinks, and returned home. Upon his return, he spread debris around the house, barricaded the doors, and poured gasoline around the basement floor, which was ignited by the water heater. He attempted to stab himself, and then lay down next to his wife's body. He explained that he intentionally piled debris around the house to fuel the fire and to "make sure that we were gone."

[Hairston] was charged with two counts of criminal homicide. Meanwhile, on December 14, 2001, [Hairston] was convicted of rape, sexual assault, burglary, attempted escape, and related charges resulting from his abuse of his step-daughter over a five year period from when Ms. Hurtt was fifteen to twenty-one, and from the charges for his conduct on May 21, 2000. At his murder trial, the Commonwealth argued that [Hairston] killed his wife and son to punish Ms. Hurtt for reporting to the authorities that Hairston held her at gun-point and attempted to rape her, and had raped her previously. At the penalty phase, the jury found two aggravating circumstances, and two mitigating circumstances.

Commonwealth v. Hairston , 624 Pa. 143, 84 A.3d 657, 662–63 (2014) (some internal citations and a footnote omitted). On July 11, 2002, the trial court imposed a sentence of death.

Following trial and the expiration of time to file post-sentence motions, trial counsel withdrew. Subsequently, current counsel entered his appearance on August 22, 2005. Id . at 663. Upon counsel's request, the trial court granted Hairston additional time to file post-sentence motions, which he did. The trial court¹ considered and denied the post-sentence motions. Id . Hairston appealed to this Court. On direct appeal, we determined that the time to file post-sentence motions and an appeal had lapsed, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(3), and we held that all claims not associated with our automatic review of capital cases were not preserved. We affirmed. Hairston , 84 A.3d at 663.

Hairston thereafter filed a petition for relief pursuant to the PCRA, requesting reinstatement of his appellate rights nunc pro tunc based upon prior counsel's ineffective assistance in failing to timely file post-sentence motions. Id . The Commonwealth conceded that prior counsel was ineffective, and the trial court granted Hairston's request to file a notice of appeal nunc pro tunc.² Id. ; Order, 11/15/2011. Hairston complied and raised numerous issues, all of which we denied, thus affirming Hairston's judgment of sentence. Hairston , 84 A.3d at 663-64, 678. The United States Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari on October 6, 2014. Hairston v. Pennsylvania , 574 U.S. 863, 135 S.Ct. 164, 190 L.Ed.2d 118 (2014).

On January 26, 2015, current counsel filed a PCRA (and a petition to amend the petition), and a motion for stay of execution. The PCRA court granted counsel permission to amend the petition, and it granted the motion to stay execution pending final disposition of the PCRA proceedings. Orders, 2/9/2015. After receiving several extensions, counsel filed an amended petition on January 30, 2017, to which the Commonwealth replied on May 30, 2018. The PCRA court issued a notice of intention to dismiss the petition pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 909(B)(2)(a) on October 30, 2018, to which Hairston responded on February 19, 2019. Hairston's response included a motion for leave to file a supplemental amended PCRA petition and a proposed amended petition, which he filed separately that same day. The supplemental amended petition challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty, highlighting a report issued by the Joint State Government Commission ("JSGC"). The Commonwealth filed a response on May 24, 2019, and the PCRA court issued a supplemental notice of intention to dismiss on June 19, 2019. On August 26, 2019, the PCRA court entered an order denying Hairston's petition for collateral relief, citing the reasons stated in its two notices of intention to dismiss.

On appeal to this Court, Hairston raises the following issues for our consideration:

I. Whether the death penalty is violative of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as Article I, § 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution ?

II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

A. Trial counsel's failure to challenge the verdict slip³

B. Appellate counsel's failure to challenge the verdict slip

C. Prosecutorial misconduct

D. Expert testimony regarding credibility

E. Expert testimony regarding Hairston's juvenile records

Hairston's Brief at 4–5.⁴

In reviewing a denial of PCRA relief, we look to whether the lower court's factual determinations are supported by the record and are free of legal error. Commonwealth v. Spotz , 610 Pa. 17, 18 A.3d 244, 259 (2011). With respect to the PCRA court's legal conclusions, we apply a de novo standard of review. Id. In reviewing credibility determinations, we are bound by the PCRA court's findings so long as they are supported by the record. The PCRA court's findings and the evidence of record are viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the winner before the PCRA court.

Commonwealth v. Hanible , 612 Pa. 183, 30 A.3d 426, 438 (2011).

In considering an appeal of a denial of a hearing, we look to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 909. Rule 909 provides that the PCRA court has the discretion to dismiss a petition without a hearing when the court is satisfied "that there are no genuine issues concerning any material fact, the defendant is not entitled to post-conviction collateral relief, and no legitimate purpose would be served by any further proceedings." Pa.R.Crim.P. 909(B)(2). In order to obtain relief, the appellant must show that he or she "raised a genuine issue of fact which, if resolved in his favor, would have entitled him to relief, or that the court otherwise abused its discretion in...