“The constitutional mandate for a fair and impartial jury is satisfied if prospective jurors are capable of casting aside any impressions or opinions they may have and rendering a verdict based solely upon the evidence presented at trial”
How later courts described this case
- “The constitutional mandate for a fair and impartial jury is satisfied if prospective jurors are capable of casting aside any impressions or opinions they may have and rendering a verdict based solely upon the evidence presented at trial”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LARSEN, Justice,
concurring.
I maintain the view that it was the legislative intent that a jury/could find that a single prior conviction for murder of the third degree qualifies as a “significant history of felony convictions involving ... violence to the person” under section 9711(d)(9) of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711(d)(9). Commonwealth v. Goins, 508 Pa. 270, 287-92 , 495 A.2d 527 (1985) (Larsen, J., concurring and dissenting). As the majority in Goins disagreed with that view, and as Goins remains the controlling law for cases of murder of the first degree occurring prior to the effective date of the legislative amendments to the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711(d)(11) and (12), (effective September 5, 1986), I am constrained to join in the result reached by the majority.
McDERMOTT, J., joins in this concurring opinion.