Court Opinion

ID: 9704968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:53:23.681552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:06.942767
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority in reasoning and result, except for its conclusion that “we find Appellant’s argument that the merger doctrine should be abolished unpersuasive. Such a change in our criminal law is a proper matter for the Legislature.” Majority slip op. at 17.
To the contrary, the merger doctrine was created by this Court, Harman v. Commonwealth, 12 Serg. & Rawle 69 (Pa.1824), and may be abolished by this Court. I agree with the Commonwealth that it is high-time that we did just that and that there is no justification or need for the continuing existence of this antiquated doctrine. It serves only to *140confuse the bench and bar, as the instant case demonstrates.