# Commonwealth v. Ballard

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 21, 2013 · 622 Pa. 177

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4968154

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Michael Eric BALLARD
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 21, 2013
- **Citations:** 622 Pa. 177; 80 A.3d 380; 2013 Pa. LEXIS 2806; 2013 WL 6124340
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Saylor
- **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, McCaffery, Saylor, Stevens, Todd
- **Cited by:** 117 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4968154

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that a trial court abuses “its discretion in admitting [gruesome] photographs when the situation generally entails indifference from the trial court or the Commonwealth to the photographs’ prejudicial effect, or where the precautions taken were not commensurate [J-2…
- affirming the defendant’s convictions for multiple counts of first-degree murder and explaining that “the nature of the killings, which [the defendant] alone committed without an accomplice, established malice and specific intent” because the four victims “were each stabbed nu…
- holding that, where victim impact witness [J-89-2014] - 48 deviated from the approved statement, the appellant was required to object to preserve his claim of error
- holding that, where victim impact witness deviated from the approved statement, the appellant was required to object to preserve his claim of error

## Opinion text

Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion, subject to the reservation that I have some difficulty with our continuing refusal to entertain an essential weight-of-the-evidence challenge relative to the imposition of a death sentence. See Majority Opinion, at 412 (relying upon Commonwealth v. Reyes, 600 Pa. 45, 53-54 , 963 A.2d 436, 441-42 (2009)). Although the majority explains that we are not well suited to the task of weighing evidence, see id., I note that we do so regularly in terms of the application of the harmless error doctrine. See, e.g., id. at 397 n.19, 398-99, 399-400. We also “reweigh” in applying the prejudice component of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Commonwealth v. Malloy, 579 Pa. 425, 461 , 856 A.2d 767, 789 (2004).
On review of Appellant’s argument, I believe we may also assess the evidence— albeit in a manner which is highly deferential to findings by juries and trial courts— with the sole aim of screening against the possibility of a death verdict which would shock the conscience. In this regard, I would credit Appellant’s position that such an inquiry is entirely consonant with our statutory obligation to review a death verdict for passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(3). Accordingly, while I previously joined the majority opinion in Reyes , I have come to believe that the decision is overstated, in the relevant regard.
Here, however, nothing in Appellant’s presentation persuades me that his death sentences were not the product of a conscientious weighing process, undertaken by a jury of his peers, and justly impacted by the force of the aggravating circumstances.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4968154. Public record. Not legal advice.