# Commonwealth v. Spotz

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 20, 2000 · 563 Pa. 269

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696783

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Mark Newton SPOTZ, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 20, 2000
- **Citations:** 563 Pa. 269; 759 A.2d 1280; 2000 Pa. LEXIS 2584
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nigro
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor
- **Cited by:** 88 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/9696783

## Opinion text

*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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696783. Public record. Not legal advice.