Court Opinion

ID: 9693753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:58:49.395314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:49.916568
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
Although I am basically in agreement with the Majority Opinion, I feel compelled to write separately to correct what I believe to be an incorrect statement of the law. Since the error is harmless, I have no problem joining the majority.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in not requiring the jury to list on the verdict slip used during the sentencing phase of the trial, the mitigating circumstances it found. In concluding that the procedure utilized by the trial judge was not defective, the majority relies upon Commonwealth v. Frey, 520 Pa. 338, 554 A.2d 27 (1989). *248However, on February 1, 1989, this Court adopted a rule, effective July 1, 1989, requiring a trial judge in a capital case to furnish to a jury a verdict slip listing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances which the trial judge determined was supported by some evidence. Pa.R.Crim.P. 357. Since appellant’s trial was conducted on June 22,1990, the trial court was required to comply with Rule 357. Clearly then, the trial court erred.
Notwithstanding the trial court’s error, I must join the majority because the trial court error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Story, 476 Pa. 391, 383 A.2d 155 (1978). In this instance, the jury determined that the aggravating circumstance outweighed the mitigating circumstances. Even though we do not know how many mitigating circumstances the jury found, the verdict may still be upheld. Assuming for the sake of argument that the jury determined that the evidence supported a finding of both mitigating circumstances, our proportionality review supports the sentence of death. Accordingly, in this instance, the alleged error is harmless. Therefore, for this reason, I join the majority opinion.