holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting witness's prior consistent statements before that witness was actually impeached on cross-examination because appellant's defense, as demonstrated by his opening . .L� 28 argument, centered around impeaching the credibility of that and other witnesses
How later courts described this case
- holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting witness's prior consistent statements before that witness was actually impeached on cross-examination because appellant's defense, as demonstrated by his opening . .L� 28 argument, centered around impeaching the credibility of that and other witnesses
- stating that "[t]he purpose of the voir dire examination is not to provide a better basis upon which a defendant can exercise his peremptory challenges, but to determine whether any venireman has formed a fixed opinion as to the accused's guilt or innocence"
- holding that the grave risk of death aggravator was satisfied when the defendant shot the victim on a sidewalk in front of a home where three individuals were sitting on the porch and could have been struck by a missed shot or ricochet bullet
- explaining trial court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted prosecution to admit prior consistent statements of witness in anticipation of announced defense before defense counsel had impeached witness on cross- examination
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring.
I join with the majority in affirming the Appellant’s convictions and his judgments of sentence, including his judgment of sentence of death. I must write separately, however, to continue my disassociation with the majority view in Commonwealth v. Goins, 508 Pa. 270 , 495 A.2d 527 (1985), and Commonwealth v. Frederick, 508 Pa. 527 , 498 A.2d 1322 (1985), regarding the reading of aggravating circumstance at Section 9711(d)(9) (42 Pa.C.S.) “a significant history of felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence to the person.”
I am still of the view, as confirmed by the legislature in its enactment of 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9711(d)(ll) and (12) in response to Goins , that the first degree murder of Davis Kelly by Appellant is properly joined with Appellant’s convictions of aggravated assault (the shooting of a woman in the Swan Bar) to constitute a “significant history” as required under 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9711(d)(9).