Court Opinion

ID: 9763836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:56:57.304465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:49.973647
License: Public Domain

Justice CAPPY
Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the result reached by the majority insofar as it affirms the decision of the trial court, which permitted Denise Chiappini to testify about her husband’s actions on the night of the arson. However, as I agree with Mr. Justice Saylor that the question presented is one of statutory interpretation, I would adopt the analysis he puts forth in the concurring portion of his concurring and dissenting opinion.
I disagree with the majority on the second question presented. Where a defendant is permitted pretrial bail with home monitoring as a condition thereof, I do not believe that the defendant is then entitled to credit on his sentence for time spent at home.1 Commonwealth v. Kriston, 527 Pa. 90, 588 *529A.2d 898 (1991); accord Commonwealth v. Conahan, 527 Pa. 199, 589 A.2d 1107 (1991).

. Although I do admit that Mr. Justice Nigro’s position is attractive given this defendant spent 518 days in a home monitoring program, ultimately I cannot agree that the facts of this case warrant that remedy.