Title: Commonwealth v. Singley (Concurring Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-94-2004] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. MICHAEL B. SINGLEY, Appellant : : : : : : : : : No. 388 CAP Appeal from the Sentencing Order filed June 4, 2001 by the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County at Nos. 509 of 1999 and 324 of 2000 ARGUED: May 12, 2004 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO DECIDED: February 24, 2005 I agree with the majority's decision to affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence. I write separately merely to note that with regard to Appellant's claim that the trial court improperly admitted victim impact testimony during his penalty phase, I continue to believe that the statutory provisions that permit the jury to consider victim impact testimony during the penalty phase of a capital case are unconstitutional.1 See Commonwealth v. Williams, 854 A.2d 440, 449-50 (Pa. 2004) (Nigro, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Rice, 795 A.2d 340, 363-64 (Pa. 2002) (Nigro, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Means, 773 A.2d 143, 162-67 (Pa. 2001) (Nigro, J., dissenting). Nonetheless, I recognize that a majority of this Court has concluded otherwise, and under that binding precedent, I must agree that the 1 In Commonwealth v. Means, 773 A.2d 143 (Pa. 2001), I suggested that this Court adopt a series of rules to govern the admission of victim impact testimony. See id. at 165- 66 (Nigro, J., dissenting). In my view, these rules would "ensure that the death penalty is meted out with proper guidance and is not imposed in an arbitrary or capricious manner." Id. at 165. 2 trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting victim impact testimony during the penalty phase of Appellant's trial.