# Commonwealth v. King

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 2, 1998 · 554 Pa. 331

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9643511

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Carolyn Ann KING, Appellant; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Bradley A. MARTIN, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 2, 1998
- **Citations:** 554 Pa. 331; 721 A.2d 763; 1998 Pa. LEXIS 2605
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Zappala
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor
- **Cited by:** 89 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/9643511

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that Appellant’s signature on the government form was appropriately used as a handwriting exemplar to compare to the signatures on the checks drawn on Goodman’s account, and that testimony concerning the use of the name “Anna” King when checking into a motel near the p…
- explaining that there “was no need for an expert to testify to the fear that [the victim] felt in his confrontation with [the defendants]—the fact that a human being would experience fear [during a violent episode] is so basic that expert opinion is unnecessary to assist the j…
- holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photograph depicting the manner in which the victim was tied and which showed graphic signs of the body’s decomposition, including blackening of hands and secretion of bodily fluids
- observing that “[t]his Court repeatedly held that the process of screening prospective jurors to determine whether any has moral, religious, or ethical beliefs that would prevent him or her from voting for the death penalty is consistent with the guarantees of a fair trial”

## Opinion text

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion except for the discussion of whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of the aggravating circumstance of torture. Maj. Opinion at 780-781. As the majority does with the Appellant’s claims of error regarding the trial court’s instructions, see footnote 10, I believe it is unnecessary to address this issue in light of the conclusion that “the trial court erred in permitting the jury to consider this aggravator in its penalty determination.” Id. at 782.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9643511. Public record. Not legal advice.