Title: Commonwealth v. Natividad (Concurring And Dissenting Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 220 CAPITAL APPEAL DOCKET
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: June 26, 2001

[J-74-1999] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. RICARDO NATIVIDAD, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : No. 220 Capital Appeal Docket Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, dated February 12, 1998, at No. 97-04- 0013 ARGUED: October 18, 1999 CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE ZAPPALA DECIDED: June 25, 2001 I agree that Appellant’s claims of error regarding the guilt phase of this capital case do not entitle him to relief. I disagree, however, with the affirmance of Appellant’s sentence of death because victim impact evidence was unconstitutionally presented in the penalty phase of Appellant’s trial. For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Means, 54 E.D. Appeal Docket 1997, I would reverse Appellant’s sentence of death and remand to the common pleas court for a new penalty hearing. Mr. Chief Justice Flaherty joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.