03 March 2026 :
February 27, 2026 - Pennsylvania. Wayne A. Smith gets resentencing
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ordered a new penalty-phase hearing in Commonwealth v. Wayne A. Smith, reviewing the dismissal of Smith’s Post Conviction Relief Act petition following his 2012 resentencing, where a jury imposed the death penalty.
Smith was originally convicted of first-degree murder in 1995 for strangling Eileen Jones and was also convicted of voluntary manslaughter in 1980.
After the court vacated his original death sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel, a new penalty-phase hearing was conducted. At that resentencing, the jury found an aggravating circumstance, determining that his prior voluntary manslaughter conviction outweighed mitigating evidence related to emotional disturbance and an abusive childhood.
According to the document, in his PCRA petition, Smith argued that resentencing counsel was ineffective for failing to properly object to evidence and argument portraying him as a “serial killer” or “serial killer in training.”
During resentencing, the Commonwealth introduced testimony that Smith read murder books, read about Ted Bundy and told police he had fantasized about being a serial killer.
The prosecutor emphasized this theme in both opening and closing arguments, suggesting Smith had planned murder for years. Although resentencing counsel initially objected pretrial to some reading-material evidence, counsel failed to preserve objections during the hearing, and on direct appeal, the issue was deemed waived.
According to the document, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Smith’s ineffective-assistance claim had arguable merit because the serial-killer evidence was not relevant to the issues before the resentencing jury.
His intent to kill had already been established by his conviction, and the court concluded the evidence had minimal probative value but substantial prejudicial impact. The court further determined that counsel lacked a reasonable basis for failing to properly object.
The court emphasized that capital sentencing demands heightened reliability, especially when a jury is weighing life or death. By allowing repeated references to Smith as a “serial killer,” the prosecution introduced highly prejudicial themes that were not directly relevant to the jury’s limited task of balancing aggravating and mitigating factors.
Because a death sentence in Pennsylvania requires jury unanimity, the court found that even the possibility that one juror could have chosen life imprisonment was sufficient to establish prejudice. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court therefore reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for a new penalty-phase hearing.
The ruling also highlights how appellate courts review whether improper arguments may have influenced a jury’s emotional response rather than its legal judgment. In capital cases, even subtle shifts in tone or emphasis can carry weight when jurors are deciding between life and death.
The decision reinforces that the penalty phase must remain focused on legally relevant evidence, not character attacks designed to inflame the jury. By ordering a new hearing, the court reaffirmed its responsibility to ensure that death sentences are imposed only through a fair and constitutionally sound process.
The document concludes that Smith established prejudice. Because a death sentence in Pennsylvania requires jury unanimity, Smith only had to show a reasonable probability that, absent counsel’s error, at least one juror would have voted for life imprisonment.
In conclusion, given the repeated and inflammatory framing of Smith as aspiring to be a serial killer, the court held that confidence in the sentencing verdict was undermined. The court reversed the PCRA court’s order and remanded for a new penalty-phase hearing.
https://davisvanguard.org/2026/02/smith-death-penalty-case-review/
