murder was not the same criminal episode as other murders committed over a three-day killing spree where there was additional evidence that defendant was the perpetrator that was unique to that case
How later courts described this case
- murder was not the same criminal episode as other murders committed over a three-day killing spree where there was additional evidence that defendant was the perpetrator that was unique to that case
- waived issue under Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 114 S.Ct. 2187, 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994) not subject to relaxed waiver review; trial court's obligation to issue Simmons charge requires defense request for charge
- “A Simmons instruction . . . is required only if 9 the prosecution makes the defendant’s future dangerousness an issue in the case and the 10 defendant specifically requests such an instruction. Here, neither of the conjunctive 11 predicates requiring a Simmons instruction exists.”
- endorsing a similar instruction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*291 NIGRO, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion but write separately only to clarify my position regarding Appellant’s claim that he was entitled to a Simmons instruction at his penalty hearing. Under the current state of the law, I am compelled to agree with the majority that the trial court did not err in failing to issue a Simmons instruction in the instant case, as Appellant did not request such an instruction nor did the Commonwealth raise the issue of Appellant’s future dangerousness. However, for the reasons more fully explained in my concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Clark, 551 Pa. 258 , 710 A.2d 31, 43-44 (1998), I continue to believe that the better approach would be to give a standardized Simmons instruction in all capital cases.