Comm. v. Young (Concurring Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-30-98] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellee : : : v. : : : RICHARD YOUNG, : : Appellant : : : : : 120 Capital Appeal Docket Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered September 6, 1995 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County ARGUED: February 4, 1998 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE CAPPY DECIDED: January 22, 1999 I concur in the result reached by the majority in the above-captioned case. I write separately in recognition that I have taken a different position than the majority advocates herein regarding the issue of victim impact testimony in the penalty phase of a capital case. However, I recognize that my position, as reflected in Commonwealth v. Fisher, 681 A.2d130 (Pa. 1996) (Cappy, J. concurring); and Commonwealth v. McNeil, 679 A.2d 1253 (Pa. 1996) (Cappy, J. dissenting), does not reflect the position of the majority of this court. In recognition of the rule of stare decisis, I join in the result reached by the majority in this case.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.