Court Opinion

ID: 9648041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:00:19.87328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:55.302101
License: Public Domain

*324FLAHERTY, Chief Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
Although, as the majority points out, prior to the Chambers case, references to the Bible were generally treated as oratorical flair which was cautioned against but not forbidden, each case must be considered on its facts. Here, the statement was:
And it’s a penalty, ladies and gentlemen, it’s even mentioned in the Bible, the book of Exodus, where it talks about, “and the murderer shall be put to death,” because this is the only just penalty based on the evidence in this case. It’s the only penalty that I submit is appropriate if our laws are to have any meaning.
This comment does not merely refer to the Bible; rather, it quotes the Bible as requiring the death penalty and it argues that if our law is to have any meaning, the penalty required by the Bible—death—must be imposed. Thus, in effect, the prosecutor substitutes biblical law for the law of Pennsylvania, arguing that the law of Pennsylvania has meaning only if what is viewed by many to be religious law—the book of Exodus—is applied. This, in my view, goes too far and requires a reversal of the sentencing phase of the case.
Thus, I dissent, as to the majority’s affirmance of the judgment of sentence, but I agree as to the majority’s affirmance of the conviction.
NEWMAN, J., joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.