Summary
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that it was incorrect to exclude evidence of a defendant's abusive childhood during the penalty phase of a trial. This type of evidence is permissible under the rules for mitigating circumstances. The Court concluded that presenting this evidence could have influenced the decision regarding a death sentence.
Summary
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that it was a mistake to prevent evidence of a defendant's difficult childhood from being presented during the sentencing phase of a trial. Such information was permissible under the existing rules for considering factors that might lessen a sentence, and its inclusion could have altered the decision regarding the death penalty.
Summary
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that a mistake was made during the penalty phase of a trial. Evidence about the defendant's difficult childhood was not allowed, but it should have been. This type of evidence is permitted under rules about reducing the severity of a sentence, and its inclusion could have changed the decision to impose the death penalty.
Summary
The highest court in Pennsylvania decided that a past court made a mistake. The old court did not allow information about a defendant's difficult childhood to be shared. This information should have been allowed during the part of the trial where the punishment was decided. This is because the law says such information can be used to show why a punishment might be less severe. Sharing this information could have changed the decision about whether the defendant would get the death penalty.