prosecutor’s statement in closing argument that “[y]ou have heard absolutely no evidence” that someone other than defendant shot victim was a permissible comment on the evidence that defendant shot victim, not a comment on defendant’s silence
How later courts described this case
- prosecutor’s statement in closing argument that “[y]ou have heard absolutely no evidence” that someone other than defendant shot victim was a permissible comment on the evidence that defendant shot victim, not a comment on defendant’s silence
- prosecutor’s comment that jury had heard absolutely no evidence which would indicate someone other than defendant shot the victim was not an impermissible comment on the defendant’s failure to testify
- “[T]he crime of burglary has always been and continues to be viewed as a crime involving the use or threat of violence to the person”
- “[I]f a person can demonstrate that the building or structure was abandoned at the time of the illegal entry, a successful defense to a burglary prosecution may be offered.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*17 NIX, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that you cannot find ineffective assistance of counsel predicated upon counsel’s failure to pursue the objection to the exclusion of veniremen due to their reluctance to impose the death penalty. Nevertheless, I am still in disagreement with the decisions in this Commonwealth that permit a death-prone jury to be impaneled in these cases where capital punishment is an available sanction. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 511 Pa. 299, 330 , 513 A.2d 373, 389 (1986) (Nix, C.J., concurring).