## Facts

- Byron G. Hathaway, Jr. was separated from his wife, Bernadette Hathaway.
- On the morning of April 28, 1981, Hathaway encountered Bernadette outside the Church of the Holy Apostles in Haverford Township after she attended a church-related event involving their child.
- After a brief conversation, Hathaway produced a .32 caliber handgun.
- Bernadette tried to run; Hathaway pursued her and fired multiple shots, causing her to fall.
- Hathaway then reloaded the handgun, approached her as she lay on the ground, and fired additional shots at close range, killing her.
- Hathaway drove away but was apprehended a short distance later.
- At trial, Hathaway did not dispute that he shot and killed Bernadette; the dispute centered on his mental state and whether he had the specific intent required for first-degree murder.
- Hathaway presented extensive psychiatric testimony and argued diminished capacity based on intoxication and mental disturbance.
- A jury convicted Hathaway of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm without a license.
- Hathaway filed timely post-verdict motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, which were denied.
- Hathaway also filed a habeas corpus petition in the trial court alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court deferred a hearing on that petition while the direct appeal proceeded.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion during voir dire by refusing requested questions aimed at uncovering bias concerning psychiatric testimony/defenses, handguns, prior juror experience, and potential spousal-violence experiences within jurors’ families?
2. In a first-degree murder case, may a defendant use psychiatric evidence of an “irresistible impulse” or inability to control conduct to prove diminished capacity (i.e., lack of specific intent to kill)?
3. Were trial counsel’s actions ineffective, and did the pending habeas petition require a remand for an evidentiary hearing rather than resolution on the direct-appeal record?

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of sentence for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm without a license.
- The court held that the trial court’s control of voir dire was within its discretion and that the voir dire conducted was sufficient to screen for juror bias.
- The court held that psychiatric evidence directed to “irresistible impulse” or impaired control relates to a form of insanity defense not recognized in Pennsylvania and is not a proper basis for a diminished capacity claim; diminished capacity focuses on the defendant’s ability to form specific intent.
- The court rejected Hathaway’s remaining claims of trial error.
- The court rejected Hathaway’s ineffective-assistance claims on the existing record and denied his request for a remand for a separate hearing, despite the deferred habeas petition in the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- A diminished capacity defense in Pennsylvania is narrow: it permits expert psychiatric evidence only to address whether the defendant was capable of forming the specific intent to kill required for first-degree murder.
- Evidence framed as an inability to control one’s actions (often described as “irresistible impulse”) is tied to a species of insanity defense not recognized in Pennsylvania and is not admissible as diminished capacity proof.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to control the scope of voir dire; refusal of additional requested questions is not reversible error where the overall voir dire is adequate to uncover bias and ensure an impartial jury.
- Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may be resolved on direct appeal when the record is sufficient; a remand for an evidentiary hearing is not required when the claims fail on the existing record.
- Counsel is not ineffective unless the underlying claim has arguable merit, counsel lacked a reasonable strategic basis, and the defendant suffered prejudice.

## Conclusion

Commonwealth v. Hathaway affirmed Hathaway’s first-degree murder and firearms convictions arising from the shooting death of his estranged wife outside a church, holding that the trial court properly limited voir dire, properly restricted psychiatric testimony to the narrow diminished capacity inquiry focused on specific intent (excluding “irresistible impulse” theories), and correctly denied relief on claims of trial error and ineffective assistance without a remand for a separate evidentiary hearing.


Commonwealth v. Hathaway, 500 A.2d 443 (1985)