# Commonwealth v. King > Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 2, 1998 · 554 Pa. 331 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9643512 ## 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 Castille - **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/9643512 ## 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 CASTILLE, Justice, concurring. I agree with the majority that the verdicts and sentences of death should be upheld as to both appellants. I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the aggravating circumstance of torture was not properly placed before the jury. Although Dr. Mihalakis’ expert testimony on the issue of whether the victim experienced fear and terror while being suffocated was improperly admitted, I *377 would find this error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the trial court erred by allowing Dr. Mihalakis to proffer expert testimony on a matter of common knowledge. By tying the victim’s hands behind his back and slowly suffocating him until the life finally ebbed out of him, appellants subjected the victim to a degree of terror and fear in the waning moments of his life which a juror does not require an expert to explain. In other words, Dr. Mihalakis did not tell the jurors anything which they did not already know by telling them that a human being would experience fear and terror as he is brutalized and suffocated. However, the same fact which renders the admission of Dr. Mihalakis’ testimony erroneous also renders such admission harmless. While an expert should generally not be permitted to testify as to a matter of common knowledge, allowing an expert to testify about truths as transparent as those at issue here should not be deemed prejudicial. To the extent that Collins v. Zediker, 421 Pa. 52 , 218 A.2d 776 (1966) holds to the contrary, I believe that case should be overruled. Thus, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that, due to the improper admission of Dr. Mihalakis’ testimony, the aggravating circumstance of torture was not properly before the jury. I concur with the remainder of the majority’s reasoning and with the result reached thereunder. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9643512. Public record. Not legal advice.