Opinion ID: 2306564
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trial Court Error In Instructing the Jury on the Torture Aggravator

Text: Appellant next claims that the trial court's jury instruction on the definition of torture was misleading and incomplete, authorizing the jury to believe that it could consider any pain appellant inflicted upon P.B. during the course of her stay in the apartment. Appellant argues that this instruction was unconstitutional because it did not limit the jurors' consideration of torturous acts to the time of the murder. Appellant also reiterates his sufficiency argument, asserting that the instruction conflicts with his view of established law limiting the jury's consideration to pain inflicted upon the victim concurrently with the murder. The Commonwealth responds that appellant failed to object to the instruction, and thus the complaint is waived, and, in any event, his complaint is meritless. A review of the record reveals that the Commonwealth is correct. Appellant did not object to this instruction. The absence of a contemporaneous objection below constitutes a waiver of appellant's claim respecting the court's charge. Pa. R.A.P. 302(a); see also Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726, 733 (2002) (appellate court will not consider claims for the first time on appeal because absence of trial court opinion is impediment to meaningful and effective appellate review). Therefore, this claim is defaulted.