Court Opinion

ID: 9747608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:22:51.086642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:24.888189
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on appellant was not illegal.* I also agree that no reversible error occurred in the admission of in-court identification testimony and appellant’s incriminating statements.
I cannot agree, however, that no error occurréd when the trial court admitted the testimony of the wife of the victim. The trial court may exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of prejudice, confusion, undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. J. McCormick, Evidence § 185 at 438-40 (2d ed. 1972); see Fed.R.Evid. 403. Here, the testimony of the victim’s wife was needed only to prove that she *271had identified her husband’s body after the crimes. The prosecution asked for, and obtained, a stipulation as to what her testimony would be. There was no need for her testimony once the defense agreed to this stipulation. Moreover, the trial court knew that she was emotionally upset; the possibility that her testimony would be prejudicial was clear. In these circumstances, appellant’s objection to her testimony should have been sustained. In fact, however, her testimony did not turn out to be prejudicial. I concur in the result only because it was harmless error to admit her testimony. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Commonwealth v. Davis, 455 Pa. 466, 317 A.2d 218 (1974).

 Appellant challenges the constitutionality of his life sentence because the death .penalty is unconstitutional, and the Legislature intended to provide a lower sentence for lesser degrees of murder. I would not address the constitutionality of the mandatory imposition of life imprisonment in cases of felony murder, because appellant has not raised this claim.