DA considers death penalty for man charged in slaying of wife’s ex-lover |

DA considers death penalty for man charged in slaying of wife’s ex-lover

Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck said Wednesday he will review the transcript from a 1977 rape trial to determine whether he should seek the death penalty against an Indiana County man charged with killing his wife’s former lover in Southwest Greensburg earlier this year.

In court documents filed yesterday, Peck said he received the trial transcript this week that details the case in which Richard A. McAnulty was convicted of rape and kidnapping.

More than three decades after that trial, McAnulty, 54, was arrested and charged with first-degree murder for the July 11 slaying of 39-year-old Harry A. Mears III.

Police contend McAnulty drove from his Center Township home to Southwest Greensburg, broke down the front door of Mears’ Oakland Avenue house and shot him three times as he tried to escape.

Peck has indicated he is considering seeking the death penalty against McAnulty. Last month, he received a one-month extension to review the case and make a determination.

Part of the review is McAnulty’s prior criminal record, which included a conviction for rape and kidnapping. An Indiana County jury in 1977 found McAnulty guilty of felony rape and kidnapping of an 18-year-old Indiana University of Pennsylvania student. Police said McAnulty forced her into his car at gunpoint and raped her on a dead-end road about two miles from campus.

Westmoreland County Judge Debra Pezze gave Peck until Dec. 4 to decide whether to seek the death penalty against McAnulty.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.