# Commonwealth v. Thomas

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 24, 2012 · 618 Pa. 70

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4966258

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Donte THOMAS
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 24, 2012
- **Citations:** 618 Pa. 70; 54 A.3d 332; 2012 Pa. LEXIS 2512; 2012 WL 5254900
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Saylor
- **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, McCaffery, Melvin, Saylor, Todd
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4966258

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying murder defendant’s challenge to prosecutor’s remarks that defendant failed to present medical evidence to corroborate claim of disability where defendant chose to present his girlfriend to testify that he was physical…
- stating that a prosecutor’s claim that a defense attorney was attempting to “shoot the messenger” in a case involving the killing of a witness was not prejudicial to the defendant as to render the jury incapable of delivering a fair verdict
- rejecting claim that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that it could infer a “consciousness of innocence” from the defendant’s post-arrest cooperation with police, particularly where no consciousness of guilt instruction had been given
- holding that specific intent to kill, as well as malice, can be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the victim’s body.

## Opinion text

Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion, except the discussion of the prosecutor’s “shoot the messenger” remark. See Majority Opinion at 338-39. In my judgment, the trial court erred in failing to sustain the defense objection. I agree with the majority that the prosecutor’s follow-up ■ commentary was inappropriate as well, and with the majority’s assessment in terms of impact on the verdict. See id.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4966258. Public record. Not legal advice.