Commonwealth v. Spotz (Concurring Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-239-1999] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellee : : : v. : : : MARK NEWTON SPOTZ, : : Appellant : : : : : No. 202 Capital Appeal Docket Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of Death entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (Hoffer, J.) dated June 18, 1996 ARGUED: November 15, 1999 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO DECIDED: October 20, 2000 I join the majority opinion but write separately only to clarify my position regarding Appellant s claim that he was entitled to a Simmons instruction at his penalty hearing. Under the current state of the law, I am compelled to agree with the majority that the trial court did not err in failing to issue a Simmons instruction in the instant case, as Appellant did not request such an instruction nor did the Commonwealth raise the issue of Appellant s future dangerousness. However, for the reasons more fully explained in my concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Clark, 551 Pa. 258, 710 A.2d 31, 43-44 (1998), I continue to believe that the better approach would be to give a standardized Simmons instruction in all capital cases.

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.