Title: Comm. v. Robinson (Concurring Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-102-1998] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. ANTYANE ROBINSON, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 174 Capital Appeal Docket ARGUED: April 28, 1998 CONCURRING OPINION MADAME JUSTICE NEWMAN DECIDED: November 24, 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 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.