Pennsylvania’s high court on Thursday threw out an automatic sentencing approach for second-degree murder, saying judges must look at a defendant’s specific role and culpability rather than impose life without parole in every such case. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order applied immediately to Derek Lee, convicted in connection with a 2014 killing in Pittsburgh, and required a resentencing.
Chief Justice Debra Todd wrote that the mandatory penalty scheme does not distinguish “between the lookout, and the killer who pulls the trigger.” In her lead opinion, Todd said life without parole for all offenders convicted of second degree murder fails to account for intent to kill and mandates the same punishment regardless of a defendant’s culpability.
The court said the ruling would have broader implications beyond Lee’s case. It ordered resentencing for Lee but noted, through the decision’s framing, that similar second-degree murder life-without-parole sentences affect a population of inmates serving those terms under the state’s prior mandatory framework.
The decision also reflected a procedural compromise. The court put its order on hold for four months and said the pause was meant to give the state’s politically divided Legislature time to “consider appropriate remedial measures.” In a footnote, the justices said they were ruling on Lee’s sentence and not addressing “questions of retroactivity.”
Under Pennsylvania’s law, prosecutors could make people liable for second-degree murder if they participated in an eligible felony that led to death, and life without parole had been the only possible sentence for those convicted of second-degree murder. The Supreme Court’s ruling targeted that mandatory sentencing structure, not the underlying ability to convict for second-degree murder in appropriate cases.
The court’s opinion laid out differing emphases among justices. Justice Kevin Dougherty wrote that, unlike defendants convicted of first-degree murder, people serving life without parole for second-degree murder have “never been found by a judge or jury to have harbored the specific intent to kill.” Dougherty added that such defendants may not have had “any involvement whatsoever with the actual killing,” and he noted they do not even have to expect or foresee that a life may be taken.
Lee’s lawyers had urged the court to declare life without parole unconstitutional for all second-degree murder convictions in Pennsylvania, according to Quinn Cozzens, a staff attorney for the Abolitionist Law Center, which helped represent Lee. Cozzens said the justices instead ruled that trial judges must examine the individual circumstances of a defendant’s case when deciding which sentence is most appropriate, including whether life without parole remains an option.
Prosecutors argued for leaving policy issues about second-degree murder sentencing to state lawmakers and the executive branch. They also raised concerns about victims’ families and said the standard for culpability is high enough that accomplices should face the highest penalties only with proof meeting that threshold.
The case itself involved a jury conviction and an acquittal on a higher charge. A jury convicted Lee of second-degree murder but acquitted him of first-degree murder in the 44-year-old Leonard Butler’s shooting death. The reporting described Butler’s killing as occurring during a struggle over a gun with Lee’s codefendant, Paul Durham.
In the justices’ accounts of the underlying conduct, Justice Sallie Mundy wrote that Lee “willingly participated in an armed home invasion and robbery” and “purposefully engaged in assaultive behavior” that included tasing and pistol-whipping the victim. Mundy also wrote that Lee and Durham “arguably kidnapped the victims by forcing them into the basement.”
Outside the courtroom, state and advocacy groups responded to the ruling. The Associated Press reported that prison reform groups hailed the decision as a landmark, and Pennsylvania’s Allegheny County district attorney’s office said it would follow the court’s order. The state’s district attorneys association said the four-month hold would give prosecutors time to have “difficult conversations” with victims’ families about how individual circumstances will be evaluated after the decision.
Meanwhile, the state public defenders’ association said the ruling would trigger new post-conviction litigation. It said defenders would need to conduct more investigation and develop “strategic litigation” in an effort to get the decision applied retroactively.
In the state Legislature, Rep. Tim Briggs, a suburban Philadelphia Democrat who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, said he planned to engage with Senate Republicans on legislation. Briggs said he wanted the decision applied retroactively so people serving life for conduct such as “being the getaway driver” would have the opportunity to have their facts reviewed again, and he argued that refusing to act would leave the issue to the courts.