Court Opinion

ID: 9643525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:32:07.554724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:01.215231
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with Mr. Chief Justice Flaherty that a jury instruction regarding the meaning of “life imprisonment” under the law of the Commonwealth would be appropriate in all capital cases. However, I believe such an instruction should be standardized1 and should be implemented prospectively. *316Thus I join the majority opinion because it follows our precedents, which hold that such an instruction is required only where the future dangerousness of the defendant has been expressly implicated. Since the common pleas court did not err in not giving the instruction, and the mere absence of such an instruction does not warrant a finding that the sentence was “the product of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor,” there is no cause to remand for a new sentencing proceeding as called for by the dissenting opinion.

. In my view, such an instruction should advise the jury that a person subject to a term of life imprisonment is not eligible for parole; the Governor has the power to grant commutation of sentence or pardon upon unanimous recommendation of the Board of Pardons following a public hearing; and the Board of Pardons is composed of the Lieutenant Governor, the Attorney General, and three Pennsylvania residents *316appointed by the Governor, including a crime victim, a corrections expert, and a medical doctor, psychiatrist or psychologist.