Case Title: Comm. v. Lassiter (Dissenting Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1998-12-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-138-1998] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. LORI LASSITER, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : 61 E.D. Appeal Dkt. 1997 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court, dated June 20, 1997, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dated June 25, 1996 696 A.2d 196 (Pa. Super. 1997) SUBMITTED: July 10, 1998 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: December 23, 1998 I agree with the majority’s holding that a prosecution for murder based on accomplice liability will not support the use of the aggravating circumstance set forth in Section 9711(d)(6) of the Judicial Code. The majority proceeds to conclude that while Appellant’s counsel was ineffective in failing to so advise Appellant, resulting in her jury waiver, there was no resulting prejudice. It is with this conclusion that I differ. The express demonstration of prejudice required by the majority is insurmountable. As a consequence, the deprivation of Appellant’s fundamental constitutional right to a trial by jury goes without a remedy. Unlike the majority, I view this constitutional deprivation as presumptively prejudicial. Thus, I would remand for a new trial. Mr. Chief Justice Flaherty and Mr. Justice Zappala join this Dissenting Opinion.