Opinion ID: 1443106
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Jury Instruction on Victim Impact Testimony

Text: Finally, Appellant challenges the trial court's decision overruling his objection to the victim impact testimony offered at the penalty phase from Robin's mother, Debra King. [21] Appellant concedes that in light of 42 Pa.C.S.  9711(a)(2), it would appear that the admission of the evidence was proper. Appellant's Brief at 50. The error, he argues, relates to 42 Pa.C.S.  9711(c)(2), and arises not from the victim impact testimony itself, but from the trial court's failure to specify how the jury was to consider this testimony. [22] Appellant also concedes that while defense counsel objected to the victim impact testimony, she did not object to the lack of an instruction, nor was such a claim included in present appellate counsel's Rule 1925(b) statement. Appellant also recognizes that by conceding that the issue was waived by defense counsel and present counsel, to avoid waiver, he is couching his claim in terms of ineffective assistance of prior and present counsel. In this regard, Appellant submits that the record is adequate for our review of this issue. As discussed supra relative to issue IV concerning the challenge to the validity of his guilty plea, Appellant again concedes that matters not included in the Rule 1925(b) statement are waived for purposes of appeal. See Castillo, 888 A.2d at 776; Lord, 719 A.2d at 309. Pursuant to Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726, claims of ineffectiveness of counsel generally will be deferred for collateral review. Again, Appellant asks us to excuse the omission, citing our plurality opinion in Johnson, 565 Pa. 51, 771 A.2d 751. However, as explained above, in Grant, we announced a new general rule providing that a defendant should wait to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel until collateral review. Grant, 813 A.2d at 738. Again, because there is no record of a hearing or argument on the ineffectiveness of counsel, this issue does not fall within the Bomar exception. Consequently, Appellant's final claim is dismissed without prejudice for consideration on collateral review.