Title: Commonwealth v. Kirkner (Concurring Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-59-2002] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. JOSEPH P. KIRKNER, IV, Appellee KELLIE KIRKNER, Intervenor : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 119 MAP 2001 Appeal from the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Superior Court entered November 17, 2000 at No. 3317 EDA 1999 affirming the Order of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division entered November 4, 1999 at No. 3049-1999 768 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. 2000) SUBMITTED: April 2, 2002 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE CAPPY Decided: August 27, 2002 I join the majority opinion, except with regard to the following two points: First, this Court has recognized that the word "shall" is not always regarded as mandatory, but has also been interpreted to be merely directory. Commonwealth v. Baker, 690 A.2d 164, 167 (Pa. 1997). Second, I disassociate myself from the majority's discussion of the victim's goal of preserving her relationship with her spouse. Slip Op at p.5. In my view, there is simply no need to discuss this aspect of the appeal, as it is not necessary to the Court's disposition of the matter.