Case Title: Commonwealth v. McDaniels, H., Nos. 410 and 411 CAP; Commonwealth v. Pelzer, K. (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2009-01-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-174-2006] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. HENRY DANIELS, Appellee COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. HENRY DANIELS, Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. KEVIN PELZER, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 410 CAP Appeal from the order entered on 3/25/03 in the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division of Philadelphia County granting new trial pursuant to PCRA petition at Nos. 8810-3175 1/4 - 3189 No. 411 CAP Appeal from the Order entered on 3/25/03 in the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division of Philadelphia County denying PCRA relief at Nos. 8810-3175 1/4 - 3189 No. 413 CAP Appeal from the Order entered on 3/25/03 in the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division of Philadelphia County granting new trial at Nos. 8810-3175 2/4 & 8810- 3190-3206 [J-174-2006] - 2 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. KEVIN PELZER, Appellant : : : : : : : : : No. 414 CAP Appeal from the Order entered on 3/25/03 in the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division of Philadelphia county denying other PCRA relief at Nos. 8810-3175 2/4 & 3190-3205 October term 1988 SUBMITTED: October 24, 2006 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: January 23, 2009 I join the majority opinion subject to the following reservations. The majority indicates that requests for rules to show cause are commonly made ex parte. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 10-11. I believe that, where reasonably practical, prior notice should be given to opposing parties, and thus, I would not endorse ex parte practice as normative. Separately, I differ with the majority’s conclusion that the jury charge, taken as a whole, satisfied the requirements of Commonwealth v. Huffman, 536 Pa. 196, 638 A.2d 961 (1994). As I find this case to be on all fours with Commonwealth v. Speight, 578 Pa. 520, 854 A.2d 450 (2004), however, I join the majority’s ultimate disposition of the jury-instruction claim based upon precedent. See generally Commonwealth v. Cox, 581 Pa. 107, 149 n.3, 863 A.2d 536, 561 n.3 (2004) (Saylor, J., dissenting) (expressing the view that Speight implicitly overruled Huffman in these circumstances); Commonwealth v. Jones, 590 Pa. 202, 250, 912 A.2d 268, 297 (2006) (Saylor, J. concurring) (“[A]fter Cox, it seems to me that the only surviving vestige of Huffman is that which remains to [J-174-2006] - 3 be litigated in the federal courts under due process theory.” (citing Laird v. Horn, 414 F.3d 419, 425-28 (3d Cir. 2005))).