Court Opinion

ID: 9707671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:18:01.203274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:36.554638
License: Public Domain

*57CAPPY, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority. I do not agree with the conclusion of the majority opinion that the testimony of the victim’s aunt could be considered “victim impact” testimony. The aunt did not offer testimony as to the effect of the murder upon her or her immediate family; she merely testified as to the general good character of the victim. Thus, I do not agree that the trial court erred in permitting this testimony to be heard by the jury.
Further, as I stated in my concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Fisher, 545 Pa. 233, 681 A.2d 130 (1996), I do not believe that “victim impact” testimony is inadmissible in the penalty stage of a capital case. Thus, even if the testimony at issue could possibly be considered as “victim impact” testimony, I would disagree with the conclusion of the majority that a new penalty hearing is required in the instant case.
CASTILLE and NEWMAN, JJ., join this dissenting opinion.