finding that, where the defendant's first-degree murder conviction was a general verdict that could have been predicated on accomplice liability, "Lassiter would have required the trial court to instruct the jury at the sentencing phase that the jury would first have to find that [the defendant] himself brought about the killing before it could find" the Section 9711(d)(6) aggravating circumstance
How later courts described this case
- finding that, where the defendant's first-degree murder conviction was a general verdict that could have been predicated on accomplice liability, "Lassiter would have required the trial court to instruct the jury at the sentencing phase that the jury would first have to find that [the defendant] himself brought about the killing before it could find" the Section 9711(d)(6) aggravating circumstance
- stating that to warrant finding that homicide does not rise to level of first-degree murder, evidence must demonstrate that defendant was intoxicated to such extent that he was unable to form requisite -7- J-S07042-23 intent; in other words, it must be established that defendant was “overwhelmed to the point of losing his sensibilities”
- holding "[i]t is well established that no Brady violation occurs where the parties had equal access to the information or if the defendant knew or could have uncovered such evidence with reasonable diligence." (internal citation omitted)
- stating that an error is harmless if the evidence of guilt, without regard to the tainted evidence, is so overwhelming that the conviction would have followed beyond a reasonable doubt without regard to it
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chief Justice CAPPY,
concurs.
I join the majority opinion in all but one facet. With respect to the analysis of Appellant’s claim alleging discrimination in jury selection on the basis of gender, I join in the views expressed by Mr. Justice Saylor in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion and Mr. Justice Castille in his Concurring Opinion regarding the application of our recent decision in Commonwealth v. Uderra, 580 Pa. 492 , 862 A.2d 74 (2004) to this issue.