The admissibility of evidence of a homicide victim's state of mind has generated a number of challenging Supreme Court decisions and for many Bucks County criminal lawyers. In some cases, the Court has taken the position that the victim's "state of mind" was relevant and the victim's statements admissible because the statements were evidence of the victim's relationship with the defendant and demonstrated the ill will and malice that the victim perceived, and/or the motive for the killing.
That case, in particular, involved a defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, appellant, arguing trial court error, appealed. The court affirmed. Testimony established that the killing was committed with malice aforethought sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction. Since appellant's signed waiver of his rights was included in the record, denial of appellant's motion to suppress was proper. Although the jury heard hearsay testimony concerning appellant's possible motive for murder, the trial court ordered that the testimony be stricken and advised the jury to disregard the testimony, thus, ordering a mistrial was inappropriate. Appellant's claim of ineffective counsel for not requesting a pre-trial psychiatric examination was merit-less because appellant offered no evidence of alleged mental defects. Since the jury found that aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances, the jury was statutorily required to impose the death sentence. Finally, the death sentenced was not disproportionate to sentences imposed in similar cases. The citation is Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 561 Pa. 266 (Pa. 2000).
Other cases have taken a more limited view, one which I believe addresses the prejudicial impact of the Fletcher approach with greater integrity. In Commonwealth v. Thornton, for example, the Court held that the victim's statement concerning his fear that the defendant was "after him" was inadmissible because the victim's state of mind was not at issue in the case. Significantly, the Court observed that the victim's statement could only be relevant as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's intent to kill if the testimony was offered for its truth; however if it was offered for the truth, it would be inadmissible as hearsay because it did not fit within any exception. In Commonwealth v. Moore, the Court followed the reasoning of Thornton and similar decisions, holding that the testimony of the victim's father, sister, and friend about the victim's statements concerning bullying by the defendant was inadmissible.