extending rule in Christy to include either counsel and noting that in Christy, "this court acknowledged the applicability of Simmons to cases in Pennsylvania decided subsequent to Simmons, where the issue of the defendant's future dangerousness was raised"
How later courts described this case
- extending rule in Christy to include either counsel and noting that in Christy, "this court acknowledged the applicability of Simmons to cases in Pennsylvania decided subsequent to Simmons, where the issue of the defendant's future dangerousness was raised"
- finding that the Commonwealth’s proffer of two prior robbery convictions constituted sufficient evidence to support a capital sentencing jury’s finding of the (d)(9) aggravator
- stating that ”[t]he jury inquired as to the meaning of ‘life imprisonment.’ The trial court responded to this question as follows ...”
- holding that prosecutor's comment that defendant failed to show remorse was in fair response to defense closing argument
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Freeman, 573 Pa. 532 (2003)
In Commonwealth v. Clark , 551 Pa. 258, 710 A.2d 31, 39 (1998), abrogated on other grounds , Commonwealth v. Freeman , 573 Pa. 532, 827 A.2d 385, 400 (2003), this Court expressly rejected Lesko 's rationale.
The opinion
ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the conclusions reached by the majority. I write separately, however, because I agree with Mr. Justice Nigro that a jury charge pursuant to Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 , 114 S.Ct. 2187 , 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994), should be mandated. Accordingly, I join in that portion of his concurring-opinion addressed to this issue.