Title: Comm. v. Robinson (Concurring Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 174 CAPITAL APPEAL DOCKET
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: November 25, 1998

[J-102-1998] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. ANTYANE ROBINSON, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 174 Capital Appeal Docket ARGUED: April 28, 1998 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE ZAPPALA DECIDED: November 24, 1998 I agree with Mr. Chief Justice Flaherty that a jury instruction regarding the meaning of “life imprisonment” under the law of the Commonwealth would be appropriate in all capital cases. However, I believe such an instruction should be standardized1 and should be implemented prospectively. Thus I join the majority opinion because it follows our precedents, which hold that such an instruction is required only where the future dangerousness of the defendant has been expressly implicated. Since the common pleas 1 In my view, such an instruction should advise the jury that a person subject to a term of life imprisonment is not eligible for parole; the Governor has the power to grant commutation of sentence or pardon upon unanimous recommendation of the Board of Pardons following a public hearing; and the Board of Pardons is composed of the Lieutenant Governor, the Attorney General, and three Pennsylvania residents appointed by the Governor, including a crime victim, a corrections expert, and a medical doctor, psychiatrist or psychologist. [J-102-1998] - 2 court did not err in not giving the instruction, and the mere absence of such an instruction does not warrant a finding that the sentence was “the product of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor,” there is no cause to remand for a new sentencing proceeding as called for by the dissenting opinion.