Title: Commonwealth v. Smith, C., Aplt (Concurring Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 500 CAP
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: December 29, 2009

[J-142-2008] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : No. 500 CAP Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on 7/26/05 in the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, Philadelphia County at No. 0405-0297 2/2 ARGUED: October 20, 2008 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: December 29, 2009 I join the majority opinion except for its treatment of the prosecutor’s remark comparing the two co-defendants at the penalty hearing. Both defendants had moved for severance of the penalty phases, in part to avoid such comparisons or other irrelevant considerations from spilling over from one defendant to the other. As recounted by the majority, after these motions were denied, the district attorney ultimately argued in closing that Appellant “comes from a good family” and that the jury should “[c]ontrast that to Mr. Bond to some extent because he didn’t have a mother, so maybe you can take that into account[.]” N.T., May 10, 2005, at 115-16 (quoted in Majority Opinion, slip op. at 28-29). The majority presently rejects Appellant’s assertion that this injected an arbitrary factor into the sentencing proceedings, in part because the prosecutor “was entitled to challenge Appellant’s argument that the jury should consider his family background as a mitigating circumstance.” Majority Opinion, slip op. at 30. [J-142-2008] - 2 Insofar as the majority’s explanation can be construed as an endorsement of the district attorney’s tactic, I respectfully demur. Particularly in the capital sentencing arena, I believe this Court should be careful to safeguard the individualized nature of the sentencing decision. See Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 304, 96 S. Ct. 2978, 2991 (1976) (plurality) (articulating that the Eighth Amendment requires a reliable, individualized process for capital sentencing); cf. Commonwealth v. Hughes, 581 Pa. 274, 363, 865 A.2d 761, 815 (2004) (noting that, where aggravating and mitigating circumstances are found, the selection aspect of capital sentencing entails a highly individualized weighing process). Here, the prosecutor undoubtedly sought to gain leverage against Appellant by reference to Bond’s childhood difficulties, although such difficulties had no relevance to Appellant’s character or the circumstances of the offense of which Appellant was convicted. Accordingly, I would not place this Court’s imprimatur on the district attorney’s remark. Nevertheless, in the context of the penalty hearing as a whole, the comparison between the upbringings of the two co-defendants constituted only a limited portion of the Commonwealth’s extensive closing argument, and was not so severe or egregious, in my view, as to require a new sentencing hearing. On this basis, I am able to join the result reached by the majority on this claim.