# Commonwealth v. Robinson

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 22, 2005 · 583 Pa. 358

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636948

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Antyane ROBINSON, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 22, 2005
- **Citations:** 583 Pa. 358; 877 A.2d 433; 2005 Pa. LEXIS 1328
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Baer
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Baer
- **Cited by:** 93 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/9636948

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating, “Appellant never asked counsel for guidance during opening statements. He cannot now claim he was ineffective or that standby counsel was ineffective because he never sought her guidance.”
- finding that the appellant was not prejudiced by the prosecutor's reference to the victim's religion because the comment was so brief it did not affect the jury's decision
- holding that prosecutorial misconduct does not occur unless the jurors form “a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant” based on the prosecutor’s comments
- holding that prosecutorial misconduct does not occur unless the jurors form a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant based on the prosecutor’s comments

## Opinion text

*387 Justice BAER,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join the Majority opinion as to its resolution of the guilt phase issues.
I, however, join Mr. Justice Saylor’s dissenting opinion only as to his conclusion that, in the penalty phase of a capital case, the finding of the “in perpetration of a felony” aggravating circumstance, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(6), should be limited to the six felonies enumerated in Section 2502(d) of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(d). Here, Appellant was never convicted of any of the felonies enumerated in Section 2502(d); therefore, I agree with Mr. Justice Saylor that Appellant’s (d)(6) aggravator should be stricken and that Appellant should receive a new penalty phase hearing consistent with this determination.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636948. Public record. Not legal advice.