Title: Com. v. Blystone

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

519 Pa. 450 (1988) 549 A.2d 81 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Scott Wayne BLYSTONE, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued March 9, 1987. Reargued March 7, 1988. Decided October 17, 1988. *451 *452 *453 *454 *455 Samuel J. Davis, John M. Purcell, Davis & Davis, Uniontown (court-appointed), for appellant. Alphonse LePore, Jr., Dist. Atty., James J. Nesser, Ewing D. Newcomer, Uniontown, for appellee. Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and STOUT, JJ. McDERMOTT, Justice. A jury found the appellant, Scott Wayne Blystone, guilty of murder of the first degree,[1] robbery,[2] criminal conspiracy to commit homicide,[3] and criminal conspiracy to commit *456 robbery.[4] After further deliberation that same jury set the penalty for the murder conviction at death.[5] The appellant was also sentenced to ten to twenty years imprisonment for the robbery conviction.[6] He directly appeals these judgments of sentence.[7] It is the practice of this Court in cases in which the death penalty has been imposed to review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an appellant's conviction. Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 500 Pa. 16, 26-27 n. 3, 454 A.2d 937, 942 n. 3 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 970, 103 S. Ct. 2444, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1327 (1983). We do so with an eye to see whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the jury to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Kichline, 468 Pa. 265, 361 A.2d 282 (1976). In the instant case the evidence presented to the jury, together with all reasonable inferences in favor of the Commonwealth, discloses the following. On the night of Friday, September 9, 1983, Scott Blystone, his girlfriend and another couple were riding around Fayette County in Blystone's automobile. Blystone, who was driving, worried about the fact that his automobile was low on gasoline and he had no money with which to purchase more. At approximately midnight, Blystone observed Dalton Charles Smithburger, Jr., hitchhiking. Blystone announced to his companions: "I am going to pick this guy up and rob him, okay, ...?" His friends endorsed the idea, or at best did nothing to oppose it, so Blystone pulled over to pick up his victim. Unfortunately, Smithburger, who was not acquainted with anyone in the car, accepted the ride. Once underway Blystone asked Smithburger if he had any money to contribute for the purpose of purchasing gasoline. Smithburger replied that he had only a few *457 dollars and reached into his pocket. Dissatisfied with that response, Blystone drew a revolver which he held to Smithburger's head. In no uncertain terms Blystone ordered Smithburger to shut his eyes and place his hands on the dashboard. Smithburger understandably offered no resistance. Though in the course of a taped interview he would later admit that "I almost splattered him right there in the car," Blystone assured Smithburger that he would lose only his money, not his life. Blystone pulled the car off the road at a lonely spot and walked Smithburger at gunpoint a short distance into an adjacent field. Blystone searched Smithburger, finding thirteen dollars. He ordered Smithburger to lie face down on the ground and wait. Smithburger complied. Blystone briefly returned to his companions in the car to inform them that he was going to kill Smithburger. The best that can be said for Blystone's friends is that perhaps they were startled into ambivalence by the enormity of the statement. In any event Blystone decided to kill Smithburger. He returned to the field where he found his victim as he had left him. Blystone knelt on Smithburger's back and asked him whether he could identify the vehicle which had picked him up. Smithburger correctly replied, "all I know is it was green and the back end was wrecked." Blystone then said, "goodbye" and emptied his revolver into the back of Smithburger's head. Such "goodbyes" are rarely the end. Such deaths take on a life of their own and rattle through the lives of the those who know, until chance or nature loosens tongues. Appellant Blystone heard more than the voice of his passengers; he heard his own voice bragging in vivid and grisly detail of the killing of that unlucky lad. (See the Appendix attached to this opinion.) Blystone eluded detection as Smithburger's murderer for over three months. However, his associates eventually exposed him. The testimonial evidence they contributed to the Commonwealth's case, along with physical evidence, would have been sufficient to support Blystone's convictions. *458 Additionally, an audio tape of Blystone describing the murder to an informant was presented to the jury (See Appendix). The combined effect of all this material was to present the jury with evidence of the appellant's guilt which was more than sufficient; it was overwhelming. Nevertheless, the appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his robbery conviction and, consequently, the imposition of the death penalty.[8] Specifically, the appellant argues, the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to satisfy the corpus delicti requirement for the crime of robbery. To establish the corpus delicti of robbery, the Commonwealth must prove a theft by criminal means. Commonwealth v. Tallon, 478 Pa. 468, 475, 387 A.2d 77, 81 (1978). In other words, the Commonwealth bears a burden to show that the crime actually occurred. The Commonwealth presented ample evidence, apart from the appellant's own admissions, that Scott Blystone did in fact rob Dalton Smithburger. Both of the young women in the car that night testified that the armed appellant took thirteen dollars from Smithburger. One of the women testified on this point as follows: Thus the appellant's argument on this point is meritless.[9] Apart from the sufficiency of the evidence supporting this robbery conviction, the appellant asserts a second theory *459 which would render this felony harmless for the purpose of setting the penalty for his murder conviction. Blystone argues that the robbery of Smithburger was completed prior to the murder and since the killing was not committed "while in the perpetration of a felony," 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(6), he cannot be sentenced to death.[10] This proposition is absurd. The crime of robbery is clearly defined: 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a). The evidence concerning the robbery and killing was uncontroverted. The appellant searched his victim at gunpoint, taking thirteen dollars; forced him to lie down; and instructed him not to move unless he wished to die. Blystone then traversed the short distance to his automobile, remaining there only long enough to announce his murderous intent and gain the endorsement of his companions. Meanwhile, Smithburger remained motionless on the ground out of fear that Blystone would fulfill his deadly promise should he resist or attempt to flee. Indeed, Blystone described in detail how he instilled doubt in Smithburger's *460 mind as to whether his robber was merely a few feet away or fled the scene: "He never moved. He thought I was there. I stepped around him, right, and I walked a little bit in a circle and I stopped. I didn't make no noise, and I said `don't think I am gone, mother-f_____r,' and then I f_____g tiptoed off, you know." Upon his return from the automobile Blystone killed Smithburger; only then did he flee the scene. Thus, this robbery was not complete when Blystone took Smithburger's money, nor when Blystone went to his car, but when he successfully fled the scene after murdering his victim. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the convictions, we turn our attention to what the appellant characterizes as errors of the trial court. The appellant contends that these rulings by the court tainted his trial in such a way that he must be granted another. We address these rulings of the trial judge in chronological order. A particularly incriminating piece of evidence in the Commonwealth's arsenal consisted of a tape recording of a conversation between the appellant and a police informant (See Appendix). On the tape Blystone is heard to recall the Smithburger robbery and homicide in lurid detail. Of course, the appellant attempted to keep this evidence from the jury by means of a pre-trial suppression motion. After a suppression hearing the trial judge denied the appellant's motion and portions of the tape were played before the jury during trial. The court found the tape admissible because the surveillance was conducted in compliance with procedures permitted under the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act[11] in that the informant consented to wear a "wire".[12] The Act provides in pertinent part: 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704(2)(ii). The appellant argues that warrantless consensual monitoring, as authorized by the Act, violated his rights as guaranteed by Article I, § 8 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, which provides: *462 This argument has been recently accepted by the Superior Court. Commonwealth v. Schaeffer, 370 Pa.Super. 179, 536 A.2d 354 (1987).[13] We, however, have not heretofore considered the matter. A look at the history of wiretapping in this Commonwealth reveals that the General Assembly has been cognizant of intrusions into the personal liberties of our citizens. For instance, our original statute dealing with the issue of wiretaps forbade any wiretapping unless all parties consented.[14] However, the current electronic surveillance statute strikes a balance between citizens' legitimate expectation of privacy and the needs of law enforcement officials to combat crime. In this regard the General Assembly has provided safeguards to protect the liberties of the citizens of the Commonwealth. For instance, the statute requires the Attorney General, deputy attorney general designated in writing by the Attorney General, district attorney, or an assistant district attorney designated in writing by the district attorney, to make a review of the facts of each case. Consent for the interception must be given by one of the parties. The Attorney General, deputy attorney general, district attorney, or assistant district attorney must be satisfied that the consent is voluntary. Only then will approval for the interception be given. In addition, the intercepted communications are subject to strict record keeping requirements.[15] *463 Appellant contends, however, that despite these safeguards the statute fails to pass constitutional muster. We disagree. A statute commands the presumption of constitutionality when it is lawfully enacted, unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the constitution. Hayes v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 493 Pa. 150, 425 A.2d 419 (1981); Tosto v. Pennsylvania Nursing Home Loan Agency, 460 Pa. 1, 331 A.2d 198 (1975). Any doubts are to be resolved in favor of sustaining the legislation. Hayes, supra, 493 Pa. at 155, 425 A.2d at 421. In the area of electronic surveillance it has already been established that one-party consensual interceptions do not violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 99 S. Ct. 1465, 59 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1979); United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 91 S. Ct. 1122, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453 (1971) reh. denied, 402 U.S. 990, 91 S. Ct. 1643, 29 L. Ed. 2d 156 (1971) (plurality opinion). However, since state courts are free to provide broader protections based on state constitutional grounds than those provided by the federal constitution, Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 87 S. Ct. 788, 17 L. Ed. 2d 730 (1967) reh. denied, 386 U.S. 988, 87 S. Ct. 1283, 18 L. Ed. 2d 243 (1967); Commonwealth v. Sell, 504 Pa. 46, 470 A.2d 457 (1983), the federal precedents are not controlling, and consideration of our state constitution is required. It has been held that the protection provided by Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution extend[s] to those zones where one has a reasonable expection of privacy, Commonwealth v. DeJohn, 486 Pa. 32, 403 A.2d 1283 (1979) cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1032, 100 S. Ct. 704, 62 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1980); and that Article I, § 8 creates an implicit right to privacy in this Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Platou, 455 Pa. 258, 312 A.2d 29 (1973) cert. denied, 417 U.S. 976, 94 S. Ct. 3183, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1146 (1974). To determine whether one's activities fall within the right of privacy, we must examine: first, whether appellant has exhibited an *464 expectation of privacy; and second, whether that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Commonwealth v. Sell, supra; Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360, 88 S. Ct. 507, 516, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967) (Concurring Opinion, Harlan, J.); Commonwealth v. Tann, 500 Pa. 593, 459 A.2d 322 (1983). The United States Supreme Court has held that a person cannot have a justifiable and constitutionally protected expectation that a person with whom he is conversing will not then or later reveal that conversation to the police. Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 83 S. Ct. 1381, 10 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1963) reh. denied, 375 U.S. 870, 84 S. Ct. 26, 11 L. Ed. 2d 99 (1963); United States v. White, supra; Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 87 S. Ct. 408, 17 L. Ed. 2d 374 (1966) reh. denied, 386 U.S. 940, 87 S. Ct. 970, 17 L. Ed. 2d 880 (1967). Furthermore, as noted above, the Court has held that one party interceptions do not violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Caceres, supra. Basically, the Supreme Court has recognized the simple fact that a thing remains secret until it is told to other ears, after which one cannot command its keeping. What was private is now on other lips and can no longer belong to the teller. What one choses to do with another's secrets may differ from the expectation of the teller, but it is no longer his secret. How, when, and to whom the confidant discloses the confidence is his choosing. He may whisper it, write it, or in modern times immediately broadcast it as he hears it. As applied to this case the above cited cases are particularly significant for two reasons: one, the Pennsylvania wiretapping statute is based on its federal counterpart, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-20,[16] the latter of which was cited with approval by the United States Supreme Court in Caceres, id. 440 U.S. at 742, 99 S.Ct. at *465 1466;[17] and two, it is the federal body of law from which we derive our test for determining what actions fall under the rubric of a privacy right, Katz, supra, (Concurring Opinion, Harlan, J.). Although, unless dictated by Supremacy Clause considerations, we are not bound to follow the federal interpretation of the federal act or the federal constitution in the interpretation of our state statute and/or constitution, we are in this case, persuaded by the rationale behind those decisions. As Mr. Justice White stated in the lead opinion in United States v. White, *466 401 U.S. at 751, 91 S. Ct. at 1126.[18] (These statements were cited with approval in Caceres, supra, 440 U.S. at 742-43, 99 S.Ct. at 1466-67). Therefore, since we find no constitutional defect in the statute, and since the Commonwealth in this case operated in compliance with the statute, the appellant's vivid recounting of the brutal murder of Dalton Smithburger was properly admitted. Appellant next argues that the trial court improperly sustained a Commonwealth challenge for cause of a prospective juror because that juror's opposition to the death penalty did not illustrate an inability to perform as a juror. The relevant voir dire testimony follows. (Emphasis added). A determination of whether to disqualify a prospective juror is made by the trial judge based on both that juror's answers as well as demeanor, and will not be reversed absent a palpable abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. DeHart, 512 Pa. 235, 248, 516 A.2d 656, 663 (1986), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S. Ct. 3241, 97 L. Ed. 2d 746 (1987). The trial court clearly considered these criteria in granting the Commonwealth's challenge. *468 Slip op. at 60-61. Though the trial court is apologetic for the state of the printed record, that concern is unnecessary. For the purpose of ruling on the Commonwealth's motion, the dispositive questions were posed and answered as indicated by our emphasis. This exchange shows this prospective juror could not carry out her duty to follow the law as the trial judge would instruct and, therefore, was properly excluded. Commonwealth v. Sneed, 514 Pa. 597, 526 A.2d 749 (1987); Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 511 Pa. 299, 513 A.2d 373 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1070, 107 S. Ct. 962, 93 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1987). See Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 106 S. Ct. 1758, 90 L. Ed. 2d 137 (1986). The appellant's final assertion of error on the part of the trial court concerns the testimony of the victim's father, Dalton Charles Smithburger, Sr. Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously permitted the Commonwealth to introduce testimony of the victim's character, intelligence and propensity to follow orders. The appellant contends that the impact of this testimony was to create sympathy for the victim which was irrelevant for purposes of determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Initially, we note that the appellant has waived this issue by failing to object to this specific testimony. The sidebar conference during which the appellant's trial counsel voiced his objection follows. It is apparent from this record that the prosecutor offered this witness to address four factual matters. The appellant's trial counsel was willing to stipulate to one of these points and objected to two others. The fourth matter, which is the issue here, was not opposed then or later and, therefore, has been waived. However, it is of little import that the appellant did not technically preserve his objection because the substantive argument supporting it is meritless. That argument points to the following testimony as prejudicial to the appellant. Evidence which has the effect of arousing sympathy for a crime victim is prejudicial and inadmissible when otherwise irrelevant. Commonwealth v. Story, 476 Pa. 391, 402, 383 A.2d 155, 160 (1978). In this case it is not apparent that the above testimony had the threshold impact of evoking sympathy for the victim in the minds or hearts *470 of the jurors. The assessment of the trial court was that the "testimony was delivered in a matter-of-fact tone and was not done in a manner which would inflame the jury." Slip op. at 36. The mere characterization of the victim as an individual having a learning disability does not make his homicide more, or less, heinous. Furthermore, this evidence was probative of the victim's passive nature and thereby lent credence to the Commonwealth's account of events prior to his death. Specifically, evidence of the victim's passiveness served to explain, at least in part, why Smithburger remained prone in the field while Blystone was at his automobile discussing with his companions the necessity of killing him. The appellant himself in his taped statement admitted that he was surprised by Smithburger's obedience. The testimony of Mr. Smithburger, being more probative than prejudicial, was properly allowed by the trial court. See Commonwealth v. Ulatoski, 472 Pa. 53, 63 n. 11, 371 A.2d 186, 191 n. 11 (1977). See also Commonwealth v. Story, supra, 476 Pa. at 402, 383 A.2d at 160. In addition to allegations of error on the part of the trial court, the appellant asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to investigate and present an alibi defense. Blystone, represented by a different attorney, presented this complaint to the trial court long after the jury rendered its verdicts and set the appropriate penalty for the homicide conviction. After a post-trial hearing conducted to air this grievance the trial court determined that appellant's argument was meritless. We concur. *471 Initially, we note the appellant did not comply with the mandatory notice provision of the rule governing the presentation of an alibi defense, which provides: Pa.R.Crim.P. 305.C.(1)(a). The consequences to a defendant who ignores the notice provision are also made clear in the rule: Pa.R.Crim.P. 305.C.(1)(d). This was not, however, an instance in which the alibi defense was barred simply because of a failure to comply with the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Blystone chose to present no defense whatsoever after the conclusion of the Commonwealth's evidence. At that point in the proceedings the trial judge conducted a colloquy out of the jury's presence to ensure that the appellant understood his right to advance evidence on his behalf. The appellant gave no *472 indication to the trial court that an alibi defense was feasible. Consequently, there was not even an opportunity for the court to abuse its discretion in the application of the alibi defense rule, Pa.R.Crim.P. 305.C.(1). Additionally, it is apparent from the record of the post-trial hearing that Blystone's alibi was a fabrication. At that proceeding the appellant waived the attorney-client privilege of confidentiality existing between him and his trial counsel. Trial counsel then testified that the testimony of the alibi witnesses would be contrary to the facts as recited to him by Blystone. In other words, the alibi witnesses would be perjuring themselves. It was also apparent that Blystone did not tell his trial counsel of the possibility of establishing his presence elsewhere at the time of the crime until after the Commonwealth rested its case. During the post-trial hearing the trial court, through its own diligence, went so far as to locate one of the appellant's alibi witnesses and import her from West Virginia for the purpose of testifying at the proceeding. After hearing the witness' testimony, and juxtaposing it with that which she had rendered in a separate prosecution arising from the same incident, the trial court found the witness was not credible. Slip op. at 56. This Court will not label counsel ineffective for failing to suborn perjury. Therefore, the appellant's argument is meritless. In addition to the claims already aired, the appellant raises three arguments challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty. One of these arguments is couched in terms of error by the trial court. The appellant asks: "Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for an evidentiary hearing to present testimony concerning the prosecution-proneness of the jury that convicted him?" To accept the appellant's contention of error, would be to accept the worth of his substantive argument to the effect that death qualified juries are prosecution-prone. We will not do this. Commonwealth v. DeHart, *473 supra, 512 Pa. at 250-53, 516 A.2d at 664-665. See Lockhart v. McCree, supra. The appellant next asserts that the death penalty statute is unconstitutional under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions because of its mandatory language. The part of the statute operative in this instance states: "the verdict must be a sentence of death if the jury unanimously finds at least one aggravating circumstance... and no mitigating circumstance," 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(c)(1)(iv). We will not dwell on this issue beyond noting that the appellant's argument was expressly refuted in the case of Commonwealth v. Peterkin, supra, 511 Pa. at 326-28, 513 A.2d at 387-88. The appellant also argues that this Commonwealth's death penalty sentencing statute violates his Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment[19] because the operative aggravating circumstance in this case[20] is overbroad, arbitrary, and does not differentiate those murders which justify the penalty from those which do not. The statutory procedure governing the imposition of the death penalty in this Commonwealth channels the discretion of the sentencing body to prevent the arbitrary and capricious imposition of capital punishment. Commonwealth v. DeHart, supra; Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, supra. Since we have previously held that the sentencing system on its face does not operate in an arbitrary or capricious manner, Blystone cannot prove a violation of his *474 constitutional rights by mere assertions that other defendants who were similarly situated did not receive death sentences. See McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 305, 107 S. Ct. 1756, 1774, 95 L. Ed. 2d 262 (1987), reh. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S. Ct. 3199, 96 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1987). The focus of his challenge must, therefore, be upon the sentencing mechanism as it has been employed to render his death sentence. A sentence of death is not merely the product of evidence which supports a particular aggravating circumstance. The Commonwealth must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance applies to the particular homicide. Thus, an aggravating circumstance has no relevance in the abstract; it can only be applied against an individual defendant by the particular sentencing body weighing the evidence before it. Should the fact-finder determine the Commonwealth has satisfied its burden of establishing the aggravating circumstance, then, and only then, does a penalty of death become cognizable. Therefore, the establishment of an aggravating circumstance represents the crossing of a threshold from a condition in which the sentencer cannot render a verdict of death to one in which it must. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(c)(1)(iv). However, an individual may thwart the imposition of the death penalty by offering evidence of mitigating circumstances concerning his character, record, and the circumstances of the offense. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(e). In this manner the fact-finder may consider any relevant circumstance that could cause it to decline to impose the death penalty. A balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors which favors the defendant cannot be reversed, as that determination by the sentencing body is unreviewable. On the other hand, a sentence of death produces an automatic appeal to this Court in which we will curb abuses of the trial or sentencing proceeding.[21] *475 There is no question that the death penalty may be constitutionally imposed for a murder committed in the course of a planned robbery. McCleskey v. Kemp, supra, at 305, 107 S. Ct. at 1774; Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859 (1976), reh. denied, 429 U.S. 875, 97 S. Ct. 197, 50 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1976). In this case the jury expressly found this aggravating circumstance to exist and, thus, Blystone's case rose above the level below which the death penalty may not be imposed. Since he refused to present any evidence of mitigation, there was nothing to block that passage. Based on its finding that there existed one aggravating and no mitigating circumstance the jury returned a sentence of death. We find no fault with the sentencing body's performance of its duty. Finally, it is the practice of this Court to examine, sua sponte, whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the circumstances of the crime and the character and record of the defendant. Commonwealth v. Frey, 504 Pa. 428, 475 A.2d 700 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 963, 105 S. Ct. 360, 83 L. Ed. 2d 296 (1984). In examining this claim we emphasize that the statute requires a verdict of death in those instances in which the jury finds one or more aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(c)(1)(iv). Thus, by the very *476 terms of the statute the death penalty cannot be considered excessive to the circumstances of this defendant. Further, we note that the continuing study of capital cases maintained by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) reveals that Blystone's punishment is not out of proportion to that imposed on similarly situated defendants.[22] For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the convictions of murder of the first degree, robbery, and criminal conspiracy to commit those offenses. The sentences of death and ten to twenty years imprisonment are affirmed.[23] ZAPPALA, J., files a dissenting opinion in which LARSEN, J., joins. ZAPPALA, Justice, dissenting. Because I disagree with the majority opinion's conclusion regarding the constitutionality of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5701 et. seq., I must dissent. *496 Since the majority sets forth the actual provisions of the Act, it is only necessary to summarize the Act. Under the Act, with the consent of a participating individual, the government may electronically eavesdrop upon a person using a body tap upon the approval of the Attorney General, the District Attorney or their enumerated authorized agents. Noticeably missing from the Act is a requirement that a disinterested judicial officer review the facts to ascertain whether probable cause exists for the intercept. It is the failure to provide for the later requirement which causes me to conclude that this part of the Act is unconstitutional. The consensual interception authorized by § 5704 amounts to a search and seizure requiring either a warrant or probable cause as required by Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. There is no question that the interception of an oral communication is considered a "search and seizure" as those terms are constitutionally defined under both the federal and state constitutions. See, Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967); Commonwealth v. White, 459 Pa. 84, 327 A.2d 40 (1974). As the majority correctly points out, in interpreting the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the United States Supreme Court has taken the approach that one party consensual interceptions do not violate that provision since an accused waives his "expectation of privacy" by conversing with another party. In short, the United States Supreme Court and the majority can discern no difference between communicating with the police informant who in turn reports to the police and surreptitiously recording the conversations directly by interception. This analysis embodies the proposition that the key factor to be considered in a wire intercept is whether the individual has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" and whether he has waived that expectation by disclosing information to any other party. While on the surface the majority's reliance upon the federal court's position seems to have merit, closer analysis reveals that blind adherence to this proposition is erroneous. *497 In its rush to adopt federal jurisprudence to support its position, the majority merely pays lip service to the admonitions of Mr. Justice Brennan of the United States Supreme Court which we heeded and embraced in Commonwealth v. Sell, 504 Pa. 46, 49, 470 A.2d 457, 459 (1983): In refusing to adopt the United States Supreme Court abolition of "automatic standing" under the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution in Sell, we reaffirmed our prior holding that the: Commonwealth v. Tate, 495 Pa. 158, 169, 432 A.2d 1382, 1387 (1981). In Sell, we then analyzed the federal case law limiting standing under the Fourth Amendment against the evolution of protected liberties guaranteed by Article I, section 8 of our own constitution and had no problem in rejecting the federal analysis of "automatic standing" under our comparable constitutional clause. It is also important to note that in Commonwealth v. Sell, supra, we upheld the overriding importance of "privacy" under our constitution: 504 Pa. 65, 470 A.2d 467. Thus, unlike our federal counterparts, the right to privacy has been elevated to a paramount right guaranteed to every citizen of this Commonwealth. This paramount status was even acknowledged by the legislature in defining an "oral communication" under the Act. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5701. If a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy, that paramount right should not be infringed upon without a corresponding justification. Both the majority and the United States Supreme Court adhere to the view that a "person cannot have a justifiable and constitutionally protected expectation that a person with whom he is conversing will not then or later reveal the conversations to the police." (Citations omitted) (Slip Opinion, p. 12). The majority adopts the federal rational without offering any persuasive argument for doing so. Under the majority view, a person could never be sure of having a confidential conversation with another. Communicating in and of itself would waive any right of privacy. As is evident, such an approach has a chilling effect, relegating *499 the right of privacy to nothing more than a useless ideal which could only be exercised when one is alone. I find comfort and support for my position in this appeal from a recently decided decision of the Supreme Court of Oregon. See State of Oregon v. Roger Jonathan Scott Campbell, 306 Or. 157, 759 P.2d 1040 (1988); Accord, Commonwealth v. Blood, 400 Mass. 61, 507 N.E.2d 1029 (1987) (Similar Massachusetts interception statute held unconstitutional as being unreasonably intrusive to impose risk of electronic surveillance on every act of speaking aloud to another person). In Campbell, the court was faced with the question of whether or not under its state constitution, police use of a radio transmitter to locate a private automobile to which the transmitter had been surreptitiously attached is a "search or seizure". In rejecting the state's argument that the court should embrace the decisions of the United States Supreme Court which validated such a use, the court boldly disassociated itself from the United States Supreme Court's decisions allowing such a monitoring, United States v. Knots, 460 U.S. 276, 103 S. Ct. 1081, 75 L. Ed. 2d 55 (1983), and United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 104 S. Ct. 3296, 82 L. Ed. 2d 530 (1984) because the United States Supreme Court's interpretation in those cases did not comport with the interpretations of the Oregon Supreme Court regarding search and seizure and privacy protection as set forth in Article I, § 9 of the Oregon Constitution. After finding that privacy is an interest protected by Article I, § 9 of its state constitution the court discussed blind adherence to federal jurisprudence. Oregon v. Campbell, 306 Or. at 1464-65 fn. 7, 759 P.2d at 1044 fn. 7. After a thorough review resulting in the rejection of the United States Supreme Court's reliance on reasonable expectation of privacy analysis, the Oregon Court considered the argument that information legitimately available through one means may be obtained through any other means without engaging in a search. In the court's poignant rejection of that premise it determined that: Id. at p. 1466-71, 759 P.2d at p. 1045-49. Even accepting arguendo, the majority's logic regarding the expectation of privacy, I am perplexed as to why a conversation between two nonconsenting persons is entitled to all the protections embodied in the federal amendment while a conversation with one consenting to eavesdropping does not. If the key element is the expectation of privacy, then the consent of one participant is insufficient. Unlike the majority, I fail to see the distinction between having the consent of one participant or none as the polestar in guaranteeing a fundamental right. Furthermore, I cannot accept the majority's conclusion that one who communicates to another does so at the expense of his privacy rights. Implicit in the right to privacy is the right to determine who benefits from your knowledge. Knowledge is as much a possessory right as the right to possess and protect our homes and personal property. An individual then may *502 desire not to expose his inner thoughts or ideals to the public at large which he may not trust, but only to selected individuals. Of course, he takes the risk that a friend may betray him and his confidences, but that risk is one that he individually and knowingly assumes. Under such circumstances, he voluntarily chooses to limit his privacy. Finally, taking the majority's reasoning to its logical extreme, if there is no difference between directly intercepting oral communications and receiving and recording information from an informant, then there will be no difference in directly probing and tapping the innermost thoughts of individuals in the future with the advent of more sophisticated electronic equipment. If the ends justify the means and the goal is to prevent criminal activity at the expense of individual liberties, then, under the majority's interpretation, I see no way to prevent intercepting thoughts even before they are orally and publicly communicated. Accepting the importance of the right to privacy, as the majority must, the issue still becomes whether the governmental intrusion is reasonable, not whether an individual possesses an expectation of privacy. We have specifically rejected the United States Supreme Court's analysis of the legitimacy of privacy as a key element in interpreting Article I, section 8 of this Commonwealth's Constitution. Instead, we have held that our primary concern is the reasonableness of the intrusion. Commonwealth v. Sell, supra. In other areas of criminal law we have consistently held that a warrantless search or a search pursuant to a warrant must be based upon probable cause. To ensure an objective determination of whether the intrusion is supported by probable cause, we have required a disinterested judicial officer to review the facts either preliminarily, in the case of a search pursuant to a warrant, or subsequently, in the case of a warrantless search, to determine if sufficient facts were present to establish probable cause that criminal activity was occurring. This neutral determination suffices to protect a person from an unjustifiable intrusion. Under *503 § 5704(2)(ii), however, the legislature has impermissibly taken the "probable cause" determination from the judiciary and given that determination to a law enforcement official who cannot be said to be either neutral or detached. In Commonwealth v. Johnston, 515 Pa. 454, 530 A.2d 74 (1987), we specifically rejected the approach now taken by the majority in balancing the individual and governmental interests to be protected in determining whether a search was reasonable. Instead, we held that a determination that probable cause existed for the search supported a finding that the search was reasonable. Without such a neutral determination the search would be unreasonable. Based upon the foregoing analysis, I cannot accept the constitutionality of § 5704 of the Act. I am cognizant of the principles that a statute is presumed to be constitutional and that the legislature does not intend to promulgate unconstitutional legislation. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(3). However, when a statute so blatantly ignores a liberty entrenched in our body of laws for over 200 years, that presumption must necessarily fall. Unlike the Superior Court's approach in Commonwealth v. Schaeffer, 370 Pa.Super. 179, 536 A.2d 354 (1987), I cannot in good conscience redraft the statute to include a requirement so basic to our system of justice to achieve a desired result. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). It is clear to me that given the importance of the right to privacy in our jurisprudence, as even acknowledged by the legislature in this Act, I cannot conclude otherwise than that the legislature did not intend for a disinterested objective determination of probable cause prior to intercepting oral communications. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). Therefore, I would find Section 5704 unconstitutional and remand this matter to the trial court for a new trial during which the information obtained pursuant to the Act would be suppressed.[1] LARSEN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion. [1] 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2501; 2502(a). [2] 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701. [3] 18 Pa.C.S. § 903. [4] Id. [5] 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711. [6] 18 Pa.C.S. § 1103(1). [7] See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 722(4); 9711(h)(1). Pa.R.A.P. 702(b). [8] The only aggravating factor the jury found to exist for purposes of setting the penalty at death was the fact that Blystone killed Smithburger during the course of a felony, i.e., robbery. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(6). Thus, the death penalty cannot stand should the robbery conviction fall. [9] The appellant also asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue and preserve any corpus delicti issue relating to the robbery conviction. Since we have addressed the substance of the corpus delicti issue in our review of the sufficiency of the evidence, we will not consider the ineffectiveness claim. [10] See note 8, supra. [11] Act of October 4, 1978, P.L. 831, No. 164, § 2, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5701 et seq. [12] In this instance the informant carried a tape recorder as well as a body transmitter which enabled the police to remotely monitor and record the conversation. [13] It should be noted that prior to the Superior Court's opinion in Commonwealth v. Schaeffer, 370 Pa.Super. 179, 536 A.2d 354 (1987), no court in this Commonwealth had accepted the position espoused by appellant. See Commonwealth v. Harvey, 348 Pa.Super. 544, 502 A.2d 679 (1985); Commonwealth v. Hassine, 340 Pa.Super. 318, 490 A.2d 438 (1985). See also United States v. Geller, 560 F. Supp. 1309 (E.D.Pa. 1983), aff'd sub nom. United States v. DeMaise, 745 F.2d 49 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1109, 105 S. Ct. 786, 83 L. Ed. 2d 780 (1985). Therefore, the trial judge's rejection of appellant's position on this issue was consistent with precedent. [14] Act of July 16, 1957, P.L. 956, No. 411 § 1, 18 P.S. § 3742. See Commonwealth v. Papszycki, 442 Pa. 234, 275 A.2d 28 (1971). [15] See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5714(a). [16] Public Law 90-351, Title III, § 802, June 19, 1968, Stats. 213. [17] See also, Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41, 92 S. Ct. 2357, 33 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1972); United States v. Cianfrani, 573 F.2d 835 (3d Cir.1978). [18] Mr. Justice White further stated: Nor should we be too ready to erect constitutional barriers to relevant and probative evidence which is also accurate and reliable. An electronic recording will many times produce a more reliable rendition of what a defendant has said than will the unaided memory of a police agent. It may also be that with the recording in existence it is less likely that the informant will change his mind, less chance that threat of injury will suppress unfavorable evidence and less chance that cross-examination will confound the testimony. Considerations like these obviously do not favor the defendant, but we are not prepared to hold that a defendant who has no constitutional right to exclude the informer's unaided testimony nevertheless has a Fourth Amendment privilege against a more accurate version of the events in question. United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 753, 91 S. Ct. 1122, 1126, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453 (1971). [19] The Eighth Amendment applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S. Ct. 1417, 8 L. Ed. 2d 758 (1962), reh. denied, 371 U.S. 905, 83 S. Ct. 202, 9 L. Ed. 2d 166 (1962). [20] The pertinent portion of the sentencing statute states: (d) Aggravating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances shall be limited to the following: ..... (6) The defendant committed a killing while in the perpetration of a felony. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(6). [21] The Sentencing Act provides: (h) Review of death sentence. (1) A sentence of death shall be subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania pursuant to its rules. (2) In addition to its authority to correct errors at trial, the Supreme Court shall either affirm the sentence of death or vacate the sentence of death and remand for the imposition of a life imprisonment sentence. (3) The Supreme Court shall affirm the sentence of death unless it determines that: (i) the sentence of death was the product of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor; (ii) the evidence fails to support the finding of an aggravating circumstance specified in subsection (d); or (iii) the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the circumstances of the crime and the character and record of the defendant. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h). [22] The AOPC study indicates that in those instances in which sentencing bodies have found one or more aggravating circumstances to exist in the absence of any mitigating circumstances, a sentence of death was returned in the overwhelming majority of those prosecutions. [23] The Prothonotary of the Western District is directed to transmit to the Governor a full and complete record of the proceedings of this case both in the trial court and this Court. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(i). [1] President Judge Cirillo of the Superior Court has written a rather lengthy and scholarly opinion on this issue in Commonwealth v. Schaeffer, supra. Except for his reasoning on the constitutionality of § 5704 of the Act, I note with approval his analysis of the issue and would incorporate his opinion into this one.