Case Title: Commonwealth v. Chiappini (Concurring And Dissenting Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2001-07-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-25-99] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. PETER CHIAPPINI, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 125 M.D. Appeal Docket 1998 Appeal from the Order of the Superior court entered February 7, 1997, at No. 232 Philadelphia 1996, affirming the judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common pleas of Lackawanna County entered March 30, 1995 at 92CR1447 695 A.2d 435 (Pa. Super. 1997) ARGUED: FEBRUARY 3, 1999: CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE CAPPY DECIDED: July 23, 2001 I concur in the result reached by the majority insofar as it affirms the decision of the trial court, which permitted Denise Chiappini to testify about her husband’s actions on the night of the arson. However, as I agree with Mr. Justice Saylor that the question presented is one of statutory interpretation, I would adopt the analysis he puts forth in the concurring portion of his concurring and dissenting opinion. I disagree with the majority on the second question presented. Where a defendant is permitted pretrial bail with home monitoring as a condition thereof, I do not believe that [J-25-99] - 2 the defendant is then entitled to credit on his sentence for time spent at home.1 Commonwealth v. Kriston, 588 A.2d 898 (Pa. 1991); accord Commonwealth v. Conahan, 589 A.2d 1107 (Pa. 1991). 1 Although I do admit that Mr. Justice Nigro’s position is attractive given this defendant spent 518 days in a home monitoring program, ultimately I cannot agree that the facts of this case warrant that remedy.