Pennsylvania House Bill HB166

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/16/25
• Refer: 1/16/25

Caption

An Act amending Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in sentencing, further providing for sentencing procedure for murder of the first degree.

Summary

HB 166 amends Pennsylvania’s sentencing statute for first-degree murder to revise the jury instruction language used in capital sentencing proceedings. The bill keeps the basic framework intact: after a conviction for first-degree murder, the jury must decide whether aggravating and mitigating circumstances warrant a death sentence or life imprisonment. The proposed change clarifies the instruction that a death sentence is required only if the jury unanimously finds at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, or if aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt; otherwise, the sentence must be life imprisonment. The bill is a narrow procedural amendment to Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, specifically section 9711 governing sentencing procedure for first-degree murder. It does not change the list of aggravating or mitigating factors, the availability of capital punishment, or the underlying offense definitions. Its practical effect would be to alter the wording judges use when instructing juries in capital cases, which could affect how sentencing deliberations are framed and how the statute is applied in court.

Impact

HB 166 would modify Pennsylvania’s capital sentencing procedure by updating the jury instruction language in first-degree murder cases. The change would affect judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, and juries involved in death penalty proceedings, while leaving the broader sentencing scheme and statutory aggravating/mitigating framework in place. Because it amends Title 42, section 9711, it would become part of the state’s criminal procedure law governing how sentencing verdicts are reached in capital cases.

Sentiment

The available legislative history suggests generally favorable committee sentiment toward the bill. In the House Judiciary Committee, the bill was reported as committed by a 25-1 vote, indicating broad support with only limited opposition. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote suggests the measure was viewed as a technical or clarifying change rather than a major policy shift.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be the capital punishment context itself, since the bill preserves and refines the death penalty sentencing process rather than revisiting whether Pennsylvania should have capital punishment. Any disagreement is likely to center on whether the revised instruction language is necessary, whether it could affect jury decision-making in death penalty cases, and whether the statute should be clarified at all. The near-unanimous committee vote suggests that, at least at this stage, opposition was limited and not strongly developed in the available record.