 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Ogrod12/30/2003
ng the evidence and rendering a true verdict." Commonwealth v. Jones, 683 A.2d 1181, 1199 (Pa. 1996). Therefore, the comments do not warrant the grant of a new sentencing hearing, nor do they constitute prosecutorial misconduct.
Penalty Phase Charge to Jury
At the close of the penalty phase, the trial court charged the jury with its responsibilities during deliberation surrounding penalty issues. Appellant argues that the charge of the trial court was in error for six independent reasons, each of which Appellant contends entitles him to a new sentencing hearing. We address each claim in turn.
A. Appellant Claims That The Trial Court Erred By Failing To Sua Sponte Advise The Jury That A Life Sentence Means Life Without Parole
Appellant alleges that the trial court erred by not advising the jury that a defendant sentenced to life may not be paroled. Appellant is only entitled to a Simmons instruction when the prosecution argues that Appellant is a future danger to the community. Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994). "A Simmons instruction is required to be given only in those cases where the future dangerousness of the defendant is at issue in the penalty phase." Commonwealth v. Chester, 733 A.2d 1242, 1257 (Pa. 1999). In this case, however, the prosecutor did not argue that Appellant would be a future danger to the public. Consequently, this claim lacks merit.
B. Appellant Claims That The Trial Court Erred By Improperly Correcting An Error In The Record.
Appellant claims that the trial transcript shows that the trial judge improperly charged the jury with its duty to find aggravating circumstances unanimously. Appellant also argues that the Commonwealth should not have been allowed to correct an error in the trial court transcript. Appellant points out that the trial transcript originally read as follows:
After considering any unanimous aggravating circumstances and as many mitigating circumstances as you individually may find, if you decide at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances exist, or if you are unable to find that one or more aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances, the verdict must be death. In all other cases, the verdict must be a sentence of life imprisonment.
Brief of Appellant at 40 (emphasis added). However, after a hearing on the issue and listening to the testimony of the stenographer, who testified that the trial court actually said "unanimously" instead of "are unable to[,]" the trial court ordered the transcript amended to read as follows:
After considering any unanimous aggravating circumstances and as many mitigating circumstances as you individually may find, if you decide at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances exist, or if you unanimously [are unable to] find that one or more aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances, the verdict must be death. In all other cases, the verdict must be a sentence of life imprisonment.
N.T. 10/9/96 at 97; 5/25/00 at 36 (emphasis added). Because the charge, as given to the jury, properly instructed the jury on its responsibilities pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(c)(1)(iv), this claim of trial court error does not entitle Appellant to a new sentencing hearing.
Appellant also asserts that the procedure used by the prosecution to correct the record was improper. Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 115(C) and Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1926 permit the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether a record should be corrected and authorize the correction in the event that an error occ
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|