# Commonwealth v. Rightnour

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 8, 1976 · 469 Pa. 107

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766237

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Leon Ernest RIGHTNOUR, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 8, 1976
- **Citations:** 469 Pa. 107; 364 A.2d 927; 1976 Pa. LEXIS 741
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jones
- **Judges:** Jones, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino
- **Cited by:** 17 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/9766237

## Opinion text

JONES, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the per curiam order entered today, however, I rest my concurrence on the grounds that the issue presented has in fact been “finally litigated.” See, Sections 3 and 4 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of 1966, January 25, P.L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. 1180-3, 4.
I agree with the majority’s interpretation that under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, a matter will not be deemed to be “finally litigated” where the vote on an issue qualifying one for relief under subsection 3(c) (12) of the Act was equally divided on direct appeal. However, it is my belief that the issue raised by appellant Rightnour does not, in the first instance, qualify under the aforementioned subsection.
The holding in Commonwealth v. McCusker, 448 Pa. 382 , 292 A.2d 286 (1972), very narrowly stated that ex *112 pert psychiatric testimony is relevant and admissible on the issue of whether a defendant prosecuted for murder acted in the “heat of passion.” 448 Pa. at 384 , 292 A.2d at 289 . The McCusker decision in no way ruled on the availability of a defense to murder such as that advanced by appellant Rightnour; that is, the defense of a “diminished capacity.” McCusker in my view being inapplicable, there are no retroactive changes in the applicable law such that post-conviction relief under subsection 3 (c) (12) of the Act could be invoked.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766237. Public record. Not legal advice.