Opinion ID: 2320238
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Lack of Simmons Instruction

Text: Appellant next argues that his death sentence should be vacated because the trial court failed to include in its sentencing charge the instruction that, in Pennsylvania, a defendant who receives a life sentence for first-degree murder is statutorily ineligible for parole. See Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 114 S.Ct. 2187, 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994). According to Appellant, the absence of a Simmons instruction violated his constitutional rights to, inter alia, due process and an impartial jury capable of making a reasoned moral judgment. In Simmons, the United States Supreme Court recognized that a state may not create a false dilemma by advancing generalized arguments regarding the defendant's future dangerousness while, at the same time, preventing the jury from learning that the defendant never will be released on parole. Id. at 171, 114 S.Ct. 2187. Therefore, the Simmons Court held that, where the state puts the future dangerousness of the defendant into issue, due process requires that the defendant be entitled to inform the jury that he or she is ineligible for parole. Id. In Pennsylvania, however, where future dangerousness is not expressly indicated, instructions detailing the character of a life sentence are not required. Commonwealth v. King, 554 Pa. 331, 721 A.2d 763, 779 (1998) (citing Commonwealth v. May, 551 Pa. 286, 710 A.2d 44, 47 (1998)). Appellant presently argues that the prosecutor put future dangerousness at issue by such conduct as eliciting testimony that [Appellant] became a [sic] `more aggressive' while in the military (Brief of Appellant at 27) (quoting N.T., 5/16/95, at 479-83, 498-99) (emphasis added), and by assert[ing] that Appellant was the ringleader in the offense, which the prosecutor repeatedly described . . . as a `military like operation' ( id. at 27-28) (quoting N.T., 5/12/95-5/18/95, at 45, 48-49, 412-13, 418, 538, 600, 794-95, 802-03) (emphasis added). Nevertheless, we have continually made clear that a prosecutor does not implicate Simmons merely by making reference to the defendant's violent past. King, 721 A.2d at 779 (citing May, 710 A.2d at 47). In the instant case, as the PCRA court found, the prosecution never argued, either directly or by implication . . . that [Appellant] would present a future threat to society. (PCRA ct. Op. at 9). Therefore, Simmons was not applicable to the case sub judice, and counsel for Appellant cannot be found ineffective for failing to argue otherwise. Hall, 701 A.2d at 203.