Counsel for Ivory King argued that by stacking consecutive 20-year sentences for each of the four murders he committed at a party when he was 17, a trial court had effectively denied him a chance at parole. Several justices seemed receptive to her argument that courts have to consider a juvenile offender's immaturity before considering the nature of their crime.
But they also appeared to lean more toward a fresh sentencing that would give the state a second chance to argue that the number of victims was still a factor, albeit as part of the court's consideration of whether the defendant could be rehabilitated.
"An expert on whether a child is permanently 'incorrigible' would certainly take into account the nature of the crime. That's why I think it would be important to have a remand in this case," said Justice Christine Donohue. "I don't see that the number of victims is eliminated from the situation … it has a different place in the analysis."
Citing the state Supreme Court's recent ruling that the Pennsylvania constitution has stronger protections against "cruel" punishment than the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment, Caroline Heller of Greenberg Traurig LLP, representing King, argued that a Bucks County court had imposed a cruel sentence when it made King's four terms of 20 to life consecutive — meaning he would not even be eligible for parole until he was in his late 90s. She said the court also ignored its own finding that King could be rehabilitated, based on experts the defense had presented.
"Ivory King's sentence is a cruel punishment," Heller told the justices Thursday during arguments in Pittsburgh. "It is unconstitutional to punish a child capable of rehabilitation by punishing him … for so long that he will never see a parole board."
The justices did question how a sentencing court should consider the heinousness of a crime, and whether a crime could ever be serious enough to warrant life in prison for a juvenile.
"How many people have to die before they can get a de facto life sentence?" asked Justice Kevin Dougherty.
Heller said the seriousness of the crime would be part of the court's analysis of whether a juvenile offender could be rehabilitated, but would be weighed against the defendant's maturity at the time of the crime. She repeatedly urged the justices that courts should first "look at the child, not at the crime."
Heller suggested that the minimum sentences, when aggregated, should top out at 35 years in order to give juvenile offenders a chance at parole.
Justice Donohue asked how the court should consider the need for a sentence to reflect retribution for the victims and their families, and Heller pointed back to the justices' March ruling in Commonwealth v. Lee
that said punishments for second-degree murder, where a defendant was participating in a separate crime that led to a victim's death, had to account for the defendant's "personal culpability."John Fegley of the Bucks County District Attorney's Office argued that King's sentence passed constitutional muster because it accurately reflected the seriousness of his crime.
"There is nothing cruel about having a mass-murderer's sentence account for each of their victims," he told the justices. Heller's request that King's case be sent back with instructions for a 35-year sentence would amount to less than nine years per murder victim, which Fegley said was unacceptably low.
But several justices took issue with that characterization, with Justice P. Kevin Brobson noting that 35 years was the proposed ceiling for a minimum sentence. He said a court could still impose 35 years to life, and a parole board could still turn down parole for someone who was not rehabilitated after that time had passed.
"You've got to do that division on both ends," Justice Brobson said.
Justice David N. Wecht also seemed to indicate a willingness to let a sentencing judge balance a defendant's maturity against the seriousness of the crime.
"Why do you lack confidence in the court's ability to take everything into account, including the multiplicity of victims?" he asked Fegley.
Fegley noted that while cases from the state and U.S. Supreme Court had found that juvenile offenders had "diminished" maturity and capacity to understand their crimes, "it's not zero." In King's case, the court had given him a downward adjustment in his sentencing range, but stacked them consecutively because of the multiple victims.
"The fact that he kept killing got him where he was," he said.
After thanking the attorneys for their public-service work, the justices took Thursday's arguments under consideration.
King is represented by Caroline J. Heller and Brian T. Feeney of Greenberg Traurig LLP, Bradley S. Bridge of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, and Marsha L. Levick of the Juvenile Law Center.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is represented by John T. Fegley and Jennifer M. Schorn of the Bucks County District Attorney's Office.
The case is Commonwealth v. King, case number 28 MAP 2025, in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
--Editing by Alex Hubbard.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
