Court Opinion

ID: 9650835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:53:01.620691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:26.430466
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
First, I agree with that line of cases holding that a conviction of felony-murder will be sustained regardless of when the intent to commit the felony was formed, and I would not overrule them.1 As the trial court charged the jury in accordance with those cases, there was no error in the instructions.
Second, the jury found appellant guilty of the first count of the information charging robbery. That particular count charges that appellant inflicted serious bodily injury upon the victim in the course of committing a theft. See Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1480, No. 334, § 1, as amended, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(l)(i). Appellant could not have inflicted serious bodily injury upon the victim in the course of committing a theft had he not formed the intent to take the victim’s property until after committing the homicide. Thus, it is explicit in the jury’s verdict of guilty of robbery that they did not accept appellant’s testimony that he took the victim’s property as an “after-thought” to the homicide, and the alleged error in the instructions was, therefore, harmless.
Accordingly, and for both of the foregoing reasons, I believe the judgments of sentence should be affirmed.
KAUFFMAN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

. See those cases cited in the Majority Opinion at page 1154.