## Facts

- Leslie White worked with William Housman at Wal-Mart and began a romantic relationship with him, unaware he lived with Beth Ann Markman.
- After Markman learned of the affair, the relationship between Markman and Housman became volatile; Markman showed bruises and contacted a domestic-violence hotline about obtaining a protection order but did not complete the process.
- Markman reconciled with Housman in mid-September 2000; witnesses reported Markman made hostile statements about White, including threats to kill her.
- On the night of the killing, Housman used a pay-phone call to lure White to the trailer shared by Housman and Markman.
- The Commonwealth’s evidence showed that after White arrived, Housman attacked her and Markman assisted in subduing and binding her; evidence supported that Markman held White down while Housman strangled her, causing death by asphyxiation.
- Markman and Housman wrapped the body, placed it in White’s Jeep, drove to Virginia, and disposed of the body.
- At trial, Markman acknowledged involvement but asserted a duress/battering-based theory, testifying Housman had recently assaulted and raped her, threatened her with a gun, and that she complied out of fear of being killed.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant charged with first-degree murder is entitled to a jury instruction on duress based on coercion by an abusive intimate partner.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove specific intent to kill for first-degree murder under accomplice liability, despite the defendant’s coercion claims.
3. Whether penalty-phase errors, including treatment of mitigation evidence related to battering and abuse, required reversal of the death sentence.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions, including first-degree murder.
- The court held the trial court did not err in refusing a duress instruction for an intentional homicide prosecution.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Markman shared the specific intent to kill as an accomplice.
- The court reversed in part as to sentencing and remanded for further proceedings on the penalty phase.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania law, duress does not provide a complete defense to intentional homicide and does not require a jury instruction that would excuse first-degree murder.
- A defendant may be convicted of first-degree murder as an accomplice if the Commonwealth proves the defendant shared the principal’s specific intent to kill, which may be inferred from conduct and participation before, during, and after the killing.
- Evidence of battering by an intimate partner may be relevant to state of mind and sentencing mitigation, but it does not convert an intentional killing into a legally excused homicide where the statutory duress defense is unavailable.

## Conclusion

The court refused to extend duress to intentional homicide in a battering/coercion context, upheld the first-degree murder conviction on an accomplice-specific-intent theory, and granted partial sentencing relief by vacating aspects of the death sentence and remanding for further penalty-phase proceedings.


Commonwealth v. Markman, 916 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007)