Pennsylvania’s highest court has fundamentally changed how the Commonwealth punishes second degree, or felony, murder. This raises urgent questions for families who lost loved ones to homicide and were told a conviction meant life in prison with no possibility of parole. In a recent decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the automatic life without parole sentence for second degree murder as unconstitutional, holding that judges must consider each defendant’s individual culpability before imposing such a severe punishment.
Commonwealth v. Derek Lee: the case that changed felony murder sentencing
In Commonwealth v. Derek Lee, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the longstanding rule that anyone convicted of second degree murder, whether they were the shooter, a co-conspirator, or a minimally involved accomplice, had to receive life in prison without the possibility of parole. Judges had no discretion. Once the jury returned a second degree murder verdict, the sentence was effectively already written.
The Court held that this mandatory life without parole scheme violates Pennsylvania’s constitutional protection against cruel punishments. Second degree murder covers every participant in certain serious felonies, such as robbery, burglary, arson, rape, or kidnapping, when someone is killed during the crime, even if a particular defendant never intended or expected anyone to die. Treating a lookout or driver exactly the same as the person who pulled the trigger, with no ability to distinguish between them at sentencing, was ruled as too blunt an instrument under the state constitution.
Importantly, Commonwealth v. Derek Lee does not change the definition of second degree murder. If a killing occurs during one of the enumerated felonies and the defendant is a principal or an accomplice, prosecutors can still charge second degree murder and juries can still convict. What has changed is what must happen at sentencing.
What changes and what stays the same after Derek Lee
Before Commonwealth v. Derek Lee:
- Every second degree murder conviction carried a mandatory life without parole sentence.
- Judges had no authority to consider a defendant’s role, intent, age, background, or mitigation at sentencing.
- Families of homicide victims were often told, directly or indirectly, that “life means life” and that the person convicted would never leave prison.
After Commonwealth v. Derek Lee:
- Second degree murder remains one of the most serious offenses in Pennsylvania.
- Judges may still impose life sentences, including life without parole, in appropriate cases.
- However, a life without parole sentence can no longer be automatic. It requires an individualized sentencing decision.
- Courts must now consider the defendant’s specific role in the crime, intent, level of participation, and other aggravating or mitigating factors.
The legislature has been instructed to revisit the sentencing and parole framework for second degree murder. In the meantime, trial courts must handle new second degree murder cases without relying on the old automatic rule, and many people currently serving mandatory life for second degree murder may seek resentencing under the new constitutional standard.
What this means for families of homicide victims
For families who have lost a loved one to a felony murder homicide, this legal shift can feel like the ground is moving under their feet. Many sat through the criminal process believing that a second degree murder conviction brought one guarantee: the person convicted in their loved one’s killing would remain in prison for life, with no chance of parole. That finality, however painful, became part of how they understood justice and safety.
The Derek Lee decision unsettles that understanding. Surviving family members may now face the possibility that a person already sentenced to life without parole could return to court for resentencing. They may fear that someone involved in their loved one’s killing could one day be considered for release. They may bear the emotional burden of being contacted about new hearings and having to revisit deeply traumatic events, while trying to make sense of unfamiliar terms like individualized sentencing and resentencing.
It is entirely normal for surviving families to feel anger, anxiety, or betrayal when a long settled sentence suddenly appears less certain. The criminal justice system must adjust to constitutional rulings, but the people who lost a loved one live with the consequences of these changes in a very personal way.
Honoring the person who was killed: families’ voices at sentencing
Even as Pennsylvania moves away from mandatory life without parole, the harm done in these cases remains at the center of any sentencing decision. The person who was killed is still recognized as the victim of a homicide, and the law still treats second degree murder as a grave offense. Because judges must now weigh each defendant’s circumstances and culpability, families may have more meaningful opportunities than before to be heard.
At an individualized sentencing or resentencing proceeding, surviving family members can provide detailed impact statements describing who their loved one was, how they were killed, and the continuing pain and trauma the family experiences. They can explain the practical and emotional consequences of the homicide, including changes in daily life, long term grief, financial and caregiving burdens, and ongoing fear for their safety. They can share their perspectives on accountability, including whether they believe a life sentence or a very lengthy term remains necessary to reflect the value of their loved one’s life and to protect the community.
Judges in Pennsylvania routinely consider this information when deciding the length and structure of a sentence and, when relevant, how parole eligibility should be approached. Your loved one’s story, your loss, and your views on safety all matter in this new landscape.
How Derek Lee may affect existing life without parole sentences
For people already serving mandatory life without parole for second degree murder, Derek Lee opens the door to potential resentencing. That does not mean every sentence will be reduced or that release is imminent. It does mean that individuals sentenced under a scheme now declared unconstitutional may seek new hearings where a judge must reevaluate the sentence in light of the defendant’s individual role and intent in the killing.
At those hearings, the court may consider updated information about the defendant’s background, conduct while incarcerated, and potential risk to the community. Just as importantly, judges can and should hear from surviving family members about the impact of the homicide and their concerns about safety and justice.
The precise procedures and timelines will depend on how courts and lawmakers implement the decision. For families, the key is understanding what is happening in their case and what rights they have as the process unfolds.
Public safety, accountability, and fairness
Ending mandatory life without parole for second degree murder does not mean Pennsylvania is “soft on crime.” Second degree murder remains a homicide offense, and judges still have the power to impose life sentences when the facts and public safety concerns warrant that outcome. The constitutional change is about proportionality, making sure that punishment reflects both the seriousness of the killing and the individual defendant’s responsibility for that death.
The law now asks courts to distinguish between a defendant who planned or directly carried out the killing and a defendant whose role in the underlying felony was more limited, whose intent was different, or whose culpability is meaningfully less. For families who have lost a loved one, that distinction can be difficult to accept when the result, a senseless death of a loved one, is the same. At the same time, the new framework gives those families a more visible place in the sentencing process and a stronger voice in shaping outcomes that affect their lives and safety.
How Unruh Turner Burke and Frees and Dan Yarnall help surviving families
At Unruh Turner Burke and Frees, we recognize that Commonwealth v. Derek Lee is not just a legal development, it is a deeply personal shock for many families who have already endured the loss of a loved one to homicide. You may be asking whether the person convicted in your case will be resentenced, whether they could ever be considered for parole, whether you will have to go back to court and see them again, and how you can make sure the judge understands what this killing has done to your family.
Attorney Dan Yarnall, who oversees the firm’s Crime Victims Advocacy practice, focuses on guiding surviving families through exactly these questions. Dan works with families to review their cases and explain, in clear terms, what to expect going forward. He helps families exercise their rights under Pennsylvania law, including the right to be notified of key hearings, to attend, and to be heard.
Dan Yarnall and the team at Unruh Turner Burke and Frees work closely with surviving families to prepare powerful, respectful impact statements and testimony that honor their loved one and clearly communicate their safety concerns. They stand beside families in court so they do not have to face the process alone and coordinate with prosecutors while monitoring legislative and procedural changes that may influence a case in the months and years ahead.
If your family has lost a loved one to a homicide in Pennsylvania and you are worried about how this change in second degree murder sentencing might affect you, we encourage you to reach out through the firm’s Crime Victims Advocacy page:
https://www.utbf.com/practices/crime-victims-advocacy/
There, you can connect directly with Dan Yarnall and the Unruh Turner Burke and Frees team, who understand both the law and the depth of your loss, and who are committed to making sure that, even as Pennsylvania’s felony murder rules evolve, your loved one’s life and your voice remain at the center of the story.
