Title: Commonwealth v. Roney (Concurring Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 354 CAPITAL APPEAL DOCKET
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: January 20, 2005

[J-199-2002] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. CHRISTOPHER RONEY, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : No. 354 CAP Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on 10/30/96 in the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, Philadelphia County, at No. 866 3/3 February Term 1996 ARGUED: December 5, 2002 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: January 20, 2005 I join the majority opinion. With respect to the matters deferred to post-conviction review pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (2002), however, I would note that one of these claims -- pertaining to evidence in the nature of victim impact testimony of two bank employees who were unrelated to the murder victim -- is framed in the alternative as a preserved claim of trial court error, inasmuch as trial counsel timely objected to the introduction of such testimony and unsuccessfully requested a limiting instruction. See Brief for Appellant at 47 n.24; N.T. 11/1/96 at 20, 40-41, 118. As the majority neither addresses the claim as such nor expressly finds it waived, see Majority Opinion, slip op. at 8 n.31, it seems to me that the post-conviction court should remain free to make its own independent determination as to the proper preservation of this issue based upon the trial record and the appellate briefs that were [J-199-2002] - 2 submitted to this Court, and, if the claim is deemed preserved, its merits as a direct claim of trial court error.