Opinion ID: 1563959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Striking of Three Jurors from the Venire Panel

Text: Appellant argues that he is entitled to a new capital sentencing hearing because the Commonwealth's pre-trial striking from the jury panel of three otherwise qualified jurors, who had expressed their opposition to the death penalty, allegedly resulted in the empanelling of a jury partial to the Commonwealth's request for the death sentence. Appellant's Brief at 28. Appellant notes that the United States Supreme Court has held that a challenge for cause cannot be sustained based merely upon a venire person's voicing of general objections to the death penalty or expression of conscientious or religious scruples against its imposition. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 521-22, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968); see also Commonwealth v. Uderra, 580 Pa. 492, 862 A.2d 74, 81 (2004) (quoting Witherspoon ). However, the record plainly shows that Appellant failed to timely object to the Commonwealth's challenges for cause to the three prospective jurors identified by Appellant as otherwise qualified. [7] An appellant waives any issue concerning the striking of a venire person when he or she fails to object to a challenge for cause, even when the issue is of constitutional dimension. Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 511 Pa. 299, 513 A.2d 373, 378 (1986); see also Commonwealth v. Lewis, 523 Pa. 466, 567 A.2d 1376, 1381 (1989) (holding that a failure to preserve an objection to the exclusion of a potential juror for cause results in waiver of the issue, even under the relaxed waiver rule); Commonwealth v. Szuchon, 506 Pa. 228, 484 A.2d 1365, 1379-80 (1984) (holding that even when prospective jurors are excluded for simply voicing a general opposition to or discomfort with the death penalty, defense counsel's failure to object to the striking for cause of such prospective jurors results in waiver of the issue). Accordingly, we conclude that this issue is waived.