holding that, when properly read in a common sense manner, first-degree murder indictment gave defendant adequate notice of the charges against him, although the criminal information did not specify the specific intent elements as to the unintended victim of shooting
How later courts described this case
- holding that, when properly read in a common sense manner, first-degree murder indictment gave defendant adequate notice of the charges against him, although the criminal information did not specify the specific intent elements as to the unintended victim of shooting
- holding that counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to challenge legally proper jury instructions
- explaining that this Court has upheld criminal indictments possessing a flaw and found them to be constitutional because they put the defendant on sufficient notice of the charge against him or her
- affirming the PCRA court’s grant of a new penalty phase where trial counsel failed to investigate and uncover a substantial amount of mitigation evidence, including juvenile court, school, and incarceration records that detailed a history of mood swings, auditory and visual hallucinations, and difficulty staying in *407 touch with reality.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chief Justice CAPPY
concurring.
I join the majority opinion except for the first two points raised by Justice Saylor’s concurring opinion regarding this court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Collins, 585 Pa. 45 , 888 A.2d 564 (2005) and the discussion regarding transferred intent as set forth in Commonwealth v. Huffman, 536 Pa. 196 , 638 A.2d 961 (1994).