# Commonwealth v. Spotz

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 2006 · 587 Pa. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9711369

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Mark Newton SPOTZ, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 2, 2006
- **Citations:** 587 Pa. 1; 896 A.2d 1191; 2006 Pa. LEXIS 659
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cappy
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Newman, Saylor, Baer, Baldwin, Eakin
- **Cited by:** 368 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/9711369

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 t…
- 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 defenda…
- 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
- finding that "counsel will not be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim"

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9711369. Public record. Not legal advice.