Case Title: Commonwealth v. Williams, C. (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2004-07-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-13-2004] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. CONNIE WILLIAMS, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 381 CAP Appeal from the June 17, 2002 Judgment of Sentence entered at No. CC 200001876 and No. CC 200002869 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division ARGUED: March 2, 2004 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO DECIDED: July 22, 2004 I join the majority opinion but write separately only to address its analysis as it relates to Appellant’s arguments that victim impact testimony was improperly admitted in the penalty phase of his trial. In Commonwealth v. Means, I dissented from the lead opinion’s conclusion that Pennsylvania’s statutory scheme governing victim impact evidence in the penalty phases of capital trials was constitutional. See Means, 773 A.2d 143, 162-167 (Pa. 2001) (Nigro, J., dissenting). To correct what I saw as the constitutional infirmity of that scheme, I set forth a series of procedural safeguards that would, in my view, prevent a jury from using victim impact evidence in an arbitrary and capricious manner when deciding whether the death penalty is an appropriate sentence. Id. at 165-166. While it is clear in the instant case that some of those procedural safeguards were met, it is [J-13-2004] - 2 equally clear that others were not.1 I nonetheless recognize that, under the controlling precedent of this Court, Appellant is not entitled to relief on his claims and I therefore join the majority’s disposition to that effect. See Means, 773 A.2d at 147-58; Commonwealth v. Harris, 817 A.2d 1033, 1052-1053 (Pa. 2002). Accord Commonwealth v. Rice, 79 A.2d 340, 363-64 (Pa. 2002) (Nigro, J. concurring) (recognizing stare decisis effect of decision in Means). 1 For example, I stated in my dissenting opinion that I would only allow the Commonwealth to introduce victim impact evidence if the defendant presents evidence pursuant to the catch-all mitigating provision, 42 Pa. C.S. § 9711(e)(8). See Means, 773 A.2d at 165 (Nigro, J., dissenting). Here, it is clear that Appellant presented such evidence, as the jury found the existence of that mitigator. At the same time, I also stated in my dissenting opinion that, absent special circumstances, I would only allow one witness to testify on behalf of the victim’s family. Id. Here, however, four witnesses offered victim impact testimony at Appellant’s penalty phase hearing and there does not appear to be any “special circumstances” that would warrant that amount of testimony.