# Commonwealth v. Sattazahn

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 24, 2008 · 597 Pa. 648

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9647584

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. David Allen SATTAZAHN, Appellee; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. David Allen Sattazahn, Appellant; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. David Allen Sattazahn, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 24, 2008
- **Citations:** 597 Pa. 648; 952 A.2d 640
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Eakin
- **Judges:** Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Todd, McCaffery, Greenspan
- **Cited by:** 103 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/9647584

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that trial courts have wide latitude when crafting jury instructions
- affirming a PCRA court's determination that records of prior psychological examinations contained "red flags," indicating a need for further investigation into a capital defendant's mental health

## Opinion text

Justice EAKIN,
Concurring and Dissenting.
I dissent from the portion of the majority’s decision affirming the PCRA court’s grant of a new penalty hearing based on trial counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to present mental health mitigation evidence. For the same reasons expressed in Commonwealth v. Romero, 595 Pa. 275 , 938 A.2d 362, 387 (2007) (at time of trial, Williams and Wiggins had not been decided, and degree of investigation required for capital counsel to not be deemed ineffective had not evolved to extent currently required), I believe counsel’s stewardship should be evaluated by the standards in effect at the time of trial. “A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” Romero, at 387 (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 950 A.2d 294 (Pa.2008), Concurring Op., at 324 (Eakin, J., concurring) (“Any other standard would require counsel to predict changes in the law and turn representation into prognostication.... ”).
Although Romero was a plurality, my view remains “that counsel’s performance regarding mitigating evidence should be critiqued according to the law existing at the time of trial, not according to later-announced standards.” Williams , at 324 (citing Commonwealth v. Hughes, 581 Pa. 274 , 865 A.2d 761, 825 (2004) (Castille, J., concurring and dissenting, joined *701 by Eakin, J.)). Here, counsel testified Appellee’s mother gave no indication of appellee’s psychiatric history, Appellee’s prison records gave no indication of any mental illness, and Appellee failed to provide counsel with names of potential witnesses and discouraged further investigation into his background, indicating he had been a troublemaker. Cf. Romero, at 388 (appellant showed no signs of mental illness, never gave counsel any useful information about his childhood or family when asked, and prison records contained no indication of psychiatric problems, although counsel was aware appellant had done poorly in school and dropped out). Given these circumstances, counsel’s decision not to pursue evidence of mental health mitigation was not unreasonable. See Commonwealth v. Carson, 590 Pa. 501 , 913 A.2d 220, 266 (2006) (in evaluating reasonableness of counsel’s investigation, court must remember counsel’s decisions may depend heavily on information his client provides to him). I would instead assess counsel’s stewardship under the law at the time of Appellee’s trial, by which standard one must conclude counsel was effective; accordingly, I would reverse the grant of a new penalty phase hearing.
In all other respects, I join the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9647584. Public record. Not legal advice.