death sentence cannot stand where jurors were informed that appellant was wanted in two other states on murder charges
How later courts described this case
- death sentence cannot stand where jurors were informed that appellant was wanted in two other states on murder charges
- refusal to grant request for appointment of new counsel on eve of trial was not abuse of discretion given defendant’s failure to state “substantial reasons” why new counsel should be appointed
- trial court’s ruling on a challenge for cause, based upon prospective juror's answers and demeanor during voir dire, will not be reversed absent a palpable abuse of discretion
- no special treatment for juveniles guaranteed by the Constitution
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIX, Chief Justice,
concurring.
While I join the majority opinion, I do believe there is merit in the position of Mr. Justice Larsen relating to the right of this Court to remand the cause for a new sentencing procedure that is not tainted. In such a proceeding the option for the reentry of the death penalty should be available. See United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 , 16 S.Ct. 1192 , 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896). Such a construction would not only protect the defendant who complains of error during the sentencing stage but would also protect society. However, in light of the language of section 9711(h)(2) of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(2), such a clarification is best left to the legislature. As the statute is presently construed, judicial tribunals are reluctant to overturn sentences of death, particularly in circumstances as horrendous as this, where that action precludes the reimposition of a sentence of death, even though the subsequent proceeding is free of error and such a sentence is fully justified under the evidence.
McDERMOTT, J., joins in this concurring opinion.