For decades, Pennsylvania’s felony murder law operated under an unforgiving rule: if a death occurred during the commission of certain felonies, everyone legally responsible for that felony could be convicted of second-degree murder and automatically sentenced to life without parole. No consideration of intention or personal involvement; the sentence was mandatory.
A breakthrough decision on March 26, 2026, by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court fundamentally changed that antiquated law.
In Commonwealth v. Lee, the court held that Pennsylvania’s automatic life-without-parole sentence for felony murder is unconstitutional because it fails to account for individual culpability. The decision represents one of the most significant sentencing rulings in recent Pennsylvania history and has the potential to impact approximately 1,000 people currently serving life sentences for felony murder convictions across Pennsylvania. Many of my clients have just learned that they may not have to die in prison for something they weren’t responsible for after having accepted that as fact for decades.
There will always be the argument that a ruling such as this one will put murderers back on the streets of Pennsylvania. It is important to note that the ruling does not abolish felony murder, nor does it mean that individuals convicted of felony murder can no longer receive life sentences. Instead, the court recognized that imposing the same punishment in every case, regardless of the circumstances or the individual’s role, violates constitutional principles. Going forward, courts must be able to consider the circumstances of the offense and the person’s level of responsibility before imposing the most severe sentence available under Pennsylvania law.
The decision is significant because felony murder has always occupied a unique place within the criminal justice system. Unlike first-degree murder, which requires a specific intent to kill, felony murder allows an individual to be convicted of murder based on participation in an underlying felony when a death occurs. As a result, some people serving life sentences for felony murder never killed anyone, never intended for anyone to die, and in some cases had no knowledge that violence was going to occur.
For years, critics of the law argued that Pennsylvania’s sentencing scheme failed to recognize these distinctions. The same mandatory sentence applied whether someone was the principal actor responsible for a death or a participant whose involvement was far more limited. Courts had no ability to consider the nuances of individual cases, and defendants had no opportunity to demonstrate that their level of culpability warranted a different outcome.
The human consequences of such a system are impossible to ignore.
One of my clients was only 19 years old when he was convicted following a purse snatching involving an elderly woman. Although he did not intend to kill anyone, he was sentenced to life without parole after the victim later died following complications from surgery related to accidental injuries sustained after the incident. Today, nearly three decades later, he remains incarcerated. However, there is renewed hope that he will be released. During his incarceration, he earned a college degree, became a mentor to younger incarcerated individuals, and established himself as a respected leader within the prison community. His story raises another important question: should a sentencing system have the ability to recognize growth, maturity, and rehabilitation, or should a punishment imposed at age 19 remain unchanged regardless of what follows?
Another client has spent almost 50 years serving a life sentence under Pennsylvania’s felony murder law. He was present when someone else committed a series of horrific crimes, including arson, rape and murder. According to the facts of his case, he neither participated in those acts nor knew they were going to occur. Nevertheless, because of Pennsylvania’s felony murder statute, he received the same mandatory life sentence as the perpetrator. Over the course of five decades in prison, he has maintained an exemplary institutional record, developed his talents as an artist, and participated in the Philadelphia Mural Arts Program. Yet under the previous sentencing framework, none of those factors mattered. The law simply did not allow courts to consider them.
The question was never whether individuals should be held accountable for their actions. Rather, the question was whether Pennsylvania could constitutionally require the same punishment for every felony murder conviction regardless of individual culpability. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that this is unconstitutional.
The ruling also reflects a broader shift occurring across the country. In recent years, there has been an increased recognition of the importance of individualized sentencing, particularly in cases involving lengthy prison terms and life sentences. Research on adolescent and young adult brain development has contributed to a growing understanding that decision-making, impulse control and risk assessment continue to develop well beyond adolescence.
The Supreme Court provided lawmakers with 120 days to enact legislation consistent with the court’s ruling. Legislators must determine what a constitutional sentencing framework for felony murder should look like and what factors courts should consider when evaluating punishment. Those discussions will undoubtedly involve difficult questions about accountability, public safety and rehabilitation.
Equally important will be determining what relief may be available to the approximately 1,000 individuals currently serving life sentences imposed under the now-unconstitutional framework. For many of these individuals, the Lee decision represents the first meaningful possibility of reconsideration they have seen in decades.
While much remains uncertain, one thing is clear: Pennsylvania has entered a new era in felony murder sentencing. The commonwealth’s highest court has rejected the notion that a single mandatory punishment can fairly apply to every felony murder case. Instead, the court has reaffirmed a principle that lies at the foundation of a just legal system: punishment should reflect individual culpability. For the hundreds of men and women who have spent decades serving life sentences without any opportunity for individualized consideration, that principle offers them a chance to be seen as more than the worst moment of their lives.
—Rebecca Langman, project manager for the firm, contributed to the preparation of this article.
Laurie Jubelirer is the owner of Jubelirer Law, and her law practice in Montgomery County is devoted to helping individuals facing criminal charges and violations of their civil rights. She is active in promoting criminal justice reform via writing and speaking, including appearances on podcasts and through her own podcast, “Voices of the System,” which recently launched in January 2026. She opened her law practice 13 years ago in 2013. Prior to opening the firm, she worked as a prosecutor in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office and as a Deputy Attorney General in the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. She is a staunch advocate for numerous incarcerated clients and an active member of Women Owned Law; the Pennsylvania, Philadelphia and Montgomery Bar Associations; and the Louis D. Brandeis Law Society.
