PA Senate Judiciary — 2026-06-23

Bartolotta? Here. Brown? Here. Here. Capoletti? Proxy? Proxy. Collette? Here. Here. Dush? Here. Haywood? Here. Here, Langerholtz. Here. Here, Mastriano. Here. Here, Pennycook. Here. Here, Sanacero. Here. Here, Saval. Proxy. Proxy. Yaw. Here. Here, Kim Ward. Proxy. Proxy. Baker. Here.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your work in bringing this to fruition to the committee. I mean, it's very clear that the General Assembly was tasked by the Supreme Court in light of their recent decision that this is an unconstitutional sentence. and they had given us 120 days to act and to put forth something that will pass this General Assembly. If we do nothing, it opens the floodgates to very, very uncertain issues. I feel even as we do something, it still will open the floodgates to appellate issues, to PCRAs, to what have you. But this framework is put in place after much deliberation, much discussion, much forethought to address the issue prospectively as well as to those serving current life sentences. And as Madam Chair Baker indicated, it will provide a certain option, and I stress that option, for parole if those guidelines are met with the age of 35 and or the age of 70 to put you before the parole board. And one important factor, which will be, I'll speak on it now, the amendment that we intend to offer, the importance of that is that it deals with a culpability analysis. And if you read the opinion of the Supreme Court, that is stressed multiple times throughout the majority opinion as well as in the concurring and dissenting opinions as well. Culpability, culpability, culpability. That must be examined. This provides a culpability analysis for every sentence going forward for second-degree murder. And the factors that are laid forth are also – it's not any coincidence that those factors mirror that of what was done with the Juvenile Act. And that is something that has withheld or withstood constitutional muster, has been upheld by our appellate courts. Those factors mirror that as well. And there are certain provisions here that give the option for the sentencing judge to continue to sentence to life and life without parole. And let's not lose sight of what this offense is. It is second-degree murder. This is a serious offense, second only to first-degree murder. And there are individuals that are serving that sentence now that are culpable in second-degree murder and should be incarcerated for life. the acts that they committed and you can look through the docket i think there's 1100 or so individuals that are currently serving those sentences and the vast majority of those are robbery there are some very violent crimes that occurred that quite frankly were rightly sentenced to second degree murder and carrying with it a life sentence what this bill will do, and again, we are forced to act, our hand is forced here by the Supreme Court declaring this opinion, it will allow for the sentencing judge to take into account the culpability. So those that may not be as culpable, the classic mantra is the getaway driver, right? That's what is the rallying cry, what kind of dominates the headlines. The getaway driver, should not be incarcerated for life when the individual that's actually pulling the trigger or causing the death as well. And I can agree that to some part. This bill will allow proper analysis by the sentencing court to determine those factors. And ironically, too, I think there are only maybe 10 cases of those 1,100 that are getaway drivers now that are serving life sentences here. in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. So the opportunity is there. As I said, it will provide for that option with the 35 years or the 70, which then also mirrors what the prospective sentences will be. And I'm certain that there will be multiple PCRAs filed regardless of what we do here as a legislature. But that framework can point to rebut the claim that they're serving an unconstitutional sentence because technically as this is adopted and if this bill, as is written in its current form, is signed into law, any individual now serving a second-degree life sentence will be eligible for parole after 35 years of the sentence or at the age of 70. And again, I stress that it's not an automatic right, but it will get them in front of the parole board to set forth their allegations as far as their culpability, as far as the assessments that are put forth that will now be codified into law. So it's, as Madam Chair indicates, it is trying to thread a very narrow needle here to stay within the parameters of what the Supreme Court has handed us. I am confident that this bill in its form does that and sets forth that term of the 35 years. And I know there's been some different opposition or behest as to why 35. I think that fits naturally within the framework if you look at a conviction for murder. First-degree murder, obviously, is life in prison. third degree murder is about 20 years. Second degree, which was life, now will replace that. It falls within the line. Also, with respect to the juvenile courts, with respect to a juvenile, it is 30 years. So this fits within that framework as far as sentencing is concerned. And again, that is the minimum. But the culpability analysis, which will be laid forth here, I think is vitally important to addressing that, and I think that speaks to what the Supreme Court spoke of, again, multiple times within their opinion, that there must be some type of culpability analysis for second-degree murder. So, again, I don't want to lose sight of the fact that there are individuals that are serving a second-degree sentence that rightly so, and there are many individuals that have committed very heinous acts. This will address the issue that the Supreme Court has handed us and allow those that have lesser culpability to have an option here, and it will address the issue going forward to those that are convicted of second-degree murder. And I would ask for an affirmative vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Proxy, no. Proxy, no. Collette? No. No. Dush? Aye. Aye. Haywood? No. No. Langerholtz? Aye. Aye. Mastriano? Aye. Aye. Pennycook? Aye. Aye. Sanisaro? No. No. Saval? Proxy, no. Proxy, no. Yaw? Aye. Aye. Kim Ward? Proxy, aye. Proxy, aye. Baker? Aye. The amendment is adopted. Now before the

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the time, the effort, and some research that has gone into making the bill and the amendment. And as most people know, I actually have a bill with Senator Street that we've been working on for a few years now. was Senate Bill 387 that would do much the same to really revamp the felony life sentence in Pennsylvania. And at the time we were working on it, there were really two states that have felony life, which is the committing a felony and someone is killed. Someone who's not involved and may not even be aware of what was happening is sentenced to life without the ability of parole. The idea is just to give them a parole hearing and let a judge make a decision, a determination, and I agree with that very, very much. I'll be a yes, again, on the bill. The one concern I had was on page three where it has the minimum of 10 years in prison for a defendant that is required to prove that they had nothing at all to do with the death, didn't know about it, didn't have a weapon. And we're unaware completely, but they're still going to be serving a minimum of 10 years in prison for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. As Senator Langerholt had said, the driver, if you will, or even some folks that I know that are incarcerated who was a juvenile at the time and was involved in a gang fight. shots were fired and tragically a 15 year old was caught in the crossfire the person who had the weapon and was proven to have the weapon and caused the death got out at about 20 years and he was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole but because he was a juvenile at the time took advantage of Miller v. Alabama a lot of explaining to say he would be behind bars for life for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and not knowing or meaning to cause death. So the minimum 10 years to me is something that I question and have a difficult time with. But again, this is something that we absolutely have to do. And I appreciate the fact that we're looking at giving a parole hearing to folks who've been incarcerated for a very, very long time, having made a horrible, horrible decision and a horrible mistake. So I will be a yes at the end, but I just wanted to voice that concern. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I, too, echo the sentiments of Senator Bartolotta. And I know that Senator Baker and Ryan, our Executive Director, are aware of my same sentiments and that I will be a yes. I do believe that this bill obviously is needed. We have a time frame to work within, and it's very important that we do this the right way, the best that we can. But I, too, have pretty strong concerns about the wrong place, wrong time individual and that ability to prove that within the courts, but still having that minimum sentence of 10 years. We really have to look at that, I think, as in reality of how things function. And if it was your situation and what you were in, and you have proven that to the court, and that still being that minimum sentence is a very strong concern of mine. And I hope we will have conversations with that as we move forward. But I will be a yes vote, and I thank the committee for their very hard and difficult work on this as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. so I do want to share a few comments number one whether we in the Senate think that someone who has been found guilty of felony murder should or should not be sentenced to life doesn't really fit what the court has said the felony murder rule we have is unconstitutional So our framework should be that all of these unfortunate decisions that have been in Pennsylvania for decades were all unconstitutional because there was no opportunity for parole types of decisions for them. That's the first thing. Second, Pennsylvania is one of the few states in the nation that have life equal life. I think there's four states in the nation where a life sentence means you've got to serve life. This is a tremendous mistake that bears down on all of us, whether the court sees it as constitutional or we in the General Assembly just see that we have denied what pretty much every other state has permitted, an opportunity for parole. and finally I don't know if this perspective on life equals life has gotten us to the point where someone who has zero culpability and has proven it gets 10 years I cannot imagine any framework of justice or dignity where no culpability equals 10 years I'll be a no

thank you madam chair and i want to thank both you and senator langer hulk uh for your efforts on this spent 16 years in the department of corrections the first eight of which was dealing with sentences and changes in the law that came down through by the court etc and one of those was with the Megan's Law, where I was tasked with registering all the inmates that were under my caseload. And I was also, I'm still, excuse me, I have professional relationships with people who are still in the sentencing area or who were when the changes came down as relates to the unconstitutionality of juveniles convicted as adults serving life. It put a tremendous strain on the inmate records offices with the department. And what I appreciate, I truly appreciate with this, is the DC-15s, the inmate sentencing jackets, Those are not going to change. The sentence of the court is not going to be changed on the records. However, keeping those that way, every inmate that is serving under that, they're going to have the chance to go before the parole board. And the parole board is going to have access to the pre-sentencing investigations, very thorough investigations in cases such as this, to help determine culpability. You know, when it was said that 0% culpability, you've got to remember both the district attorney made the determination that there was culpability there, and the jury, the jury of the common citizens who were sitting there made the determination that this individual was culpable to the extent that they met the standards for second-degree murder. So the convicted person had the ability to make the case about culpability in this case. And both the prosecutor that brought the case in the first place as well as the jury has seen that this individual is culpable. so uh the culpability analysis that's done you have the pre-sentence investigation uh another document the called the facts of crime or an affidavit of probable cause those things are all things that are available for the parole board to consider another element that uh was brought up is the Post-Conviction Relief Acts. We're going to still see a lot. I know the courts. I know there are going to be attorneys out there that are going to be bringing PCRAs, as Senator Langerholt said. Those cases are still going to end up coming to the courts, and we're going to see some of those. And we'll see how the court shakes that out. But I will say that this, for the short amount of time that we've had here, I'm absolutely amazed at the amount of work that has gone into this to ensure that we don't have 1,100 cases descending on the courts immediately. It's going to overload the court systems. And the fact that we've used in this bill what happened with the juveniles convicted as adults as the format to go forward with regards to the timelines and other considerations, it speaks well to how this bill was drafted and also to ensure that the individual is given the opportunity to have his say before the parole board to help determine whether or not he needs to be back out on the streets, as well as ensuring that the courts aren't overloaded and the Department of Corrections is not swamped with a bunch of changes. They're going to be, because of the age and the amount of time served, those individuals who have been in for a long time, they're going to end up having the opportunity to make their case. Those who have not, there will be a period of time where they can actually start making their case within the institution because one of the things that the parole board considers is how well the inmate adapted within the Department of Corrections and whether or not they're suitable for being out on the streets. so there are again i applaud the makers uh and the team that was involved in doing this and i'm urging members to please support this with the courts as well as the department and uh uh even the for stability among the families by the way thank you for also the office of victim advocates going to have some work to do to notify the families but and i appreciate that as well So that's a well-done piece of legislation. I encourage a yes vote.

Thank you Madam Chair Let me start with something I think everyone here agrees on The Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v Lee requires us to act The question is not whether to respond it is how And on that question, I have real concerns about Senate Bill 1400. Lee told us something specific. A person convicted of second-degree murder is entitled to have their sentence evaluated as an individual. Senate Bill 1400 does not give them that. It leaves mandatory life without parole intact for certain aggravating factors and creates the illusion of a lower option, 10 to 40 years, available only if a six-part test is met in full with the burden of proof shifted onto the defendant rather than the prosecution. And one part of that test cannot be satisfied by the very conduct that produces a second-degree conviction, such as driving the perpetrator to or from the scene. And I recognize my colleagues' comments that there are 11 of those cases among the 1,100. Those are 11 lives. Those are 11 people's lives. The co-sponsorship memo says the bill targets the most heinous acts under Section 1102 while offering relief to those who are less culpable. In practice, it makes proving lesser culpability so difficult that we end up with 35 to life for nearly everyone charged. On the parole board review process, the bill says the board need not rehear a request from someone eligible under Lee if it ruled on any previous parole request within the last five years. And while the board may decide to override that in practice, the default tells you what the policy assumes. It does not begin with the presumption that these individuals are entitled to be heard as a result of Lee. Here is what concerns me most. Senate Bill 1400 builds its sentencing around aggravating factors, the same architecture that produced life without parole result the court rejected in Lee. We would be adopting the standard the court found unconstitutional with little real change. This is the first chance our committee has had to vote in response to Lee. Senate Bill 1400 is not the only path. Senator Street's Senate Bill 387 takes the balanced, uniform approach Lee requires. And I would remind my colleagues that as a matter of process, the Office of Attorney General, the District Attorneys Association, and reform advocates have spent weeks working together to craft a meaningful legislative solution. Senate Bill 1400 was not the product of that work. In the interest of justice and a constitutional system of law and order, we should get this right rather than rush it, especially when the bill was introduced less than 24 hours ago and is moving forward without substantive conversations with impacted stakeholders. I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this proposal today, but I hope to continue working with the Chairwoman and our colleagues, both in the Senate and the House, to bring a product forward that achieves support in both chambers and makes it to the Governor. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the fact that we are addressing this issue in the committee today. And while there are, as has been heard, differences in what this bill, Senate Bill 1400, would do and what many of us would like to see as the approach, I think there's a general recognition that it is important for the legislature to act, because in the absence of the legislature acting when that date comes in July, this issue will then be in front of all of our courts in our counties, and judges will be left without guidance from the legislature, which you might consider is a good thing or a bad thing, but I think on balance it would be better for the legislature to give them some guidance. So let's start with what the Lee decision did and what it did not do. What it did was find that our current law with respect to sentencing for felony murder or second-degree murder ran afoul of our state constitution's prohibition against cruel punishment, and therefore is unconstitutional. What it did not do was find that the underlying crime of felony murder or second-degree murder was unconstitutional. And that's an important distinction to make because what it means, contrary to some earlier comments is that if someone is found guilty of felony murder or second-degree murder, they will be obviously convicted, and then it's an issue of what the proper sentence is. And I think at the heart of this issue is the question of how much discretion the legislature gives to the court in considering those cases. It's not whether there are some really bad actors, people who have done really heinous things who get convicted of second-degree murder. I think we all acknowledge that that's the case, just as it's the case that there are some actors who are the proverbial drivers of the getaway car. How many fall into what category? I don't know. I have not, and I would suspect that no one on this committee has done a comprehensive review of all those cases. But that question is not really relevant to us in trying to fashion a policy, because we need to be thinking about every individual case from the least culpable to the most culpable, and something that will give the courts enough guidance to fashion a result that is, in fact, just. And that is our task as legislators as best we can. And I think the issue really is the amount of discretion that we give to courts. And one of the reasons why there has been now for the last couple of decades a movement away from mandatory minimum sentences has been the recognition that it takes a lot of that discretion away. And in many cases, because it takes that discretion away, it works an injustice. Now, what the court said here was that this mandatory sentence of life without parole, in fact, was so far on that spectrum that it produced a so unjust result that it was, in fact, unconstitutional. I think we need to strike a better balance than what this bill currently proposes. while I do appreciate, again, the effort to address this issue and the recognition that we need to do so. And for the reasons that Senator Collette mentioned earlier, I think that this bill falls short, however, in what ultimately we need to do. But having said that, I am ready and willing to continue to work on a compromise that we hopefully could get through the Senate and also the House, because I think there's a recognition on both sides of the aisle that it would be better for this legislature to pass such a policy than to have the current statutory rule expire without any action by the legislature. So for these reasons, I will be a no today, but I am interested in working on this issue moving forward and hope and expect that we can reach a compromise that will win support by both the General Assembly and ultimately the governor as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A few things just to speak on. And if I made mention of those 11 lives or 1011 lives of the getaway driver that were our lives, I apologize. I'm hopeful that they will have the ability to get in front of an appropriate board to have that examined. I do not mean to cast that aside as not being not mattering. So I apologize for that comment if that was taken in that vein. I do think it bears mention to speak, though, of, you know, as we talk about wrong place, wrong time. And the bulk of these cases, we're talking about murder. I'm talking about loss of life in the perpetration of a felony. Death that occurs. So the wrong place, wrong time, maybe in certain small factors, but this is felony second-degree murder, what we're dealing with. And just to correct, I think, maybe some of the comments that if you read the opinion in the majority opinion, I'm going to read directly from the opinion. As I indicated in my initial comments, it talks about culpability, culpability, culpability. within the majority opinion. And I'm reading directly from this. Thus, in the absence of an individualized assessment of the circumstances of a second-degree murder, the imposition of mandatory life without parole is inconsistent with notions of rehabilitation. I'm talking about what did the court actually say. Punishment should be proportionate to culpability. Regardless of the culpability and characteristics of the defendant, including such as the extent of an offender's participation in the conduct and the details of his offense without individualized assessment, either sentencing or through parole prevents the sentencer from considering whether this harshest of sentences proportionally punishes the offender. This legislation addresses those concerns. And finally, I think what is most telling in the opinion, it's in a footnote at the end, that's on page 70. The Supreme Court said in footnote 18, To be clear, under our decision today, the Commonwealth is not required to ensure parole or eventual release to someone convicted of second-degree murder. Such a convict may remain incarcerated for the duration of his natural life. rather we hold that offenders convicted of second degree murder must receive a meaningful consideration of release based upon their individual culpability and the circumstances surrounding their crime this bill accomplishes those ideals thank you madam chair

Bartolotta?

Aye. Brown?

Aye. Capoletti?

Proxy, no. Collette?

No. Dush?

Aye. Haywood?

No. Langerholtz?

Aye. Mastriano. Proxy aye. Proxy aye. Penny Cook. Aye. Aye. Sanisaro. No. No. Saval. Proxy no. Proxy no. Yaw. Aye. Kim Ward. Proxy aye. Proxy aye. Baker. Aye. Aye. The ayes are nine, nays five.

Thank you, Chairwoman Baker, Chairwoman Collette, and members of the committee for consideration of Senate Bill 1212. For years, Pennsylvania has worked to address the backlog of untested rape kits and to ensure that survivors of sexual assault are treated with urgency and dignity they deserve. We've made real progress. through act 122 of 2024 pennsylvania is now moving forward with a statewide sexual assault evidence tracking system so survivors can better understand where their kid is in the process but as the pennsylvania commission on crime and delinquency identified in its annual report there are still gaps in the current law that create delays the definition of awaiting testing includes language that allows a local law enforcement agency to determine whether a kit should undergo dna or other forensic evidence while this inclusion in the law may have been well intended in practice it creates inconsistencies from one jurisdiction to another senate bill 1212 makes a narrow but important change it removes that discretionary language and helps establish a clear statewide expectation that sexual assault evidence that has been collected and has not yet received DNA or other appropriate forensic analysis should be treated consistently. When a survivor goes through the difficult process of having evidence collected, that evidence should not sit untested because of inconsistent local practices. Senate Bill 1212 strengthens our commitment to survivors, improves investigative integrity, and continues Pennsylvania's work to eliminate the rape kit backlog. I want to thank my co-prime sponsors, Senators Brown and Langerholt, for their work on this bill, and I thank the committee for its consideration. Thank you, Senator Penny Cook. Are there any other members who wish to speak

removal of the discretion of local law enforcement. Is there any concern that when there have been legitimate reasons to determine that a kit wasn't required, for example, in the case where we know who, there's no question about who the victim or perpetrator are, the question is whether or not it was consent. So are we requiring a test when the question is consent, not who is the perpetrator, and are we concerned that that will sort of create more testing backlog than already exists? I would say that there are some cases where consent is very clearly up front, but you

Any further questions or comments on Senate Bill 1212? Seeing none, hearing none. Are there any negative votes on Senate Bill 1212? Seeing none, hearing none, Senate Bill 1212 will advance from committee unanimously. The next bill on our agenda is Senate Bill 890 by Senator Bartolotta, which amends Title 20 to adopt the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act. I have an amendment to the bill, or before I do that, do I have a motion to move the bill? Senator Bartolotta, seconded by Senator Sanacero. I have an amendment, number A03763, which incorporates provisions of House Bill 2124, known as the Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act. I will move the amendment, seconded by Senator Langerholt. Are there any questions or comments on the amendment? Any negative votes on the amendment? Seeing none, hearing none on Senate Bill 890 as amended. Senator Bartolotta, would you like to speak on your bill?

Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Senator Bartolotta. Are there any questions or comments from the members? Seeing none, hearing none, are there any negative votes? Seeing none, hearing none, Senate Bill 890, as amended, will advance unanimously from committee. And the final bill on our agenda today is House Bill 2443 by Representative Kyle Mullins. It establishes a Child Victim Recovery Fee Act to create a fund, support children's advocacy centers, CACs, and services for minor victims. I will move the bill, seconded by Senator Yaw. Representative Mullins is here, and thank you for your patience through the long committee meeting.

Thank you, Representative Mullins. I concur with your work and have been stunned at the number of cases that our child advocacy centers here on a given annual basis. the Luzern County CAC, close to 500 children last year. And when we did pinwheels for advocacy, it was striking to me the number of pinwheels represented the number of children that were harmed in our community. And so the work they do, you're absolutely correct, prevents re-victimization of these vulnerable children and helps them through court accompaniment and a process that allows them to heal and grow. So thank you for your work. Are there any other members who wish to comment? Any questions or comments? Seeing no further on House Bill 2443, are there any negative votes? Seeing none, hearing none, House Bill 2443 will advance unanimously. And that concludes the business before the committee. We will recess to the call of the chair. Thank you.