Court Opinion

ID: 9643513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:31:50.354347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:01.134532
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority, and write separately only to reiterate the position I expressed in Commonwealth v. Chandler, 554 Pa. 401, 721 A.2d 1040, regarding the “life means life” issue. As I stated in Chandler:
[I]n cases where Simmons would require a “life means life” instruction, I agree with Chief Justice Flaherty that the court should instruct the jury that the defendant’s sentence could be commuted. Where future dangerousness is at issue, the impossibility of parole and the possibility of *378commutation are equally relevant, so the court should inform the jury of both contingencies.
In this case, I agree with the majority that future dangerousness was not at issue. Accordingly, I agree that the trial court properly declined to give a “life means life” instruction.