stating that even isolated references to evidence not of record will not necessarily be considered “so pervasive or deliberate so that the unavoidable effect thereof [is] to prejudice the jury to the point that they could not fairly weigh the evidence presented.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that even isolated references to evidence not of record will not necessarily be considered “so pervasive or deliberate so that the unavoidable effect thereof [is] to prejudice the jury to the point that they could not fairly weigh the evidence presented.”
- holding that, in a first-degree murder case, a defense witness testified that the defendant had a reputation of being kind and courteous and relating well with others while his counsel portrayed him as devoutly religious, a war hero and a model prisoner
- concluding that the prosecutor’s isolated reference to the victim’s family did not unfairly prejudice the jury
- “[T]he Constitution does not prohibit every retrospective law that alters a party’s situation to his disadvantage.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIGRO, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the Majority opinion, and write separately solely to reaffirm my position that a standardized Simmons instruction should be given in all capital cases for the reasons more fully explained in my concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Clark, 551 Pa. 258 , 710 A.2d 31, 43-44 (1998)(Nigro, J., concurring).