# Commonwealth v. King

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9643513

## 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 Newman
- **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/9643513

## 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

NEWMAN, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority, and write separately only to reiterate the position I expressed in Commonwealth v. Chandler, 554 Pa. 401 , 721 A.2d 1040 , regarding the “life means life” issue. As I stated in Chandler :
[I]n cases where Simmons would require a “life means life” instruction, I agree with Chief Justice Flaherty that the court should instruct the jury that the defendant’s sentence could be commuted. Where future dangerousness is at issue, the impossibility of parole and the possibility of *378 commutation are equally relevant, so the court should inform the jury of both contingencies.
In this case, I agree with the majority that future dangerousness was not at issue. Accordingly, I agree that the trial court properly declined to give a “life means life” instruction.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9643513. Public record. Not legal advice.