Case Title: Comm. v. King and Martin (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1998-12-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-11A&B-1998] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee, v. CAROLYN ANN KING, Appellant. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee, v. BRADLEY A. MARTIN, Appellant. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 105 Capital Appeal Docket Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on November 30, 1994 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, Criminal 93-10898. ARGUED: February 2, 1998 106 Capital Appeal Docket Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on November 30, 1994 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, Criminal 93-10899. ARGUED: February 2, 1998 CONCURRING OPINION MADAME JUSTICE NEWMAN DECIDED: December 2, 1998 I join the majority, and write separately only to reiterate the position I expressed in Commonwealth v. Chandler, No. 111 Capital Appeal Docket, regarding the “life means life” issue. As I stated in Chandler: [I[n cases where Simmons would require a “life means life” instruction, I agree with Chief Justice Flaherty that the court should instruct the jury that the defendant’s sentence could be commuted. Where future dangerousness [J-11A&B-1998] -- 2 is at issue, the impossibility of parole and the possibility of commutation are equally relevant, so the court should inform the jury of both contingencies. In this case, I agree with the majority that future dangerousness was not at issue. Accordingly, I agree that the trial court properly declined to give a “life means life” instruction.