Comm. v. Young (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-99-1999] THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA , : : Appellee, : : : v. : : : RICHARD YOUNG, : : Appellant. : : : : : No. 120 Capital Appeal Docket Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered September 6, 1995 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Criminal Division at No. 92-CR-397 SUBMITTED: May 19, 1999 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE CASTILLE DECIDED: March 24, 2000 I join the majority because the statements in this case are exculpatory in that the speaker is exculpating himself from the crime and shifting the blame to others. It would be a far different story if the statements were inculpatory and inculpated others as coconspirators. Such statements should be admissible and traditionally have been if redacted. See e.g., Commonwealth v. Chester, 526 Pa. 578, 587 A.2d 1367 (1991), Commonwealth v. Johnson, 474 Pa. 410, 378 A.2d 859 (1977). Sharing the blame, rather than shifting the blame, is indicia of reliability because the speaker inculpates himself and does not benefit by naming others. Therefore, I join the Majority Opinion insofar as the decision is limited to statements in which the declarant is shifting the blame because such statements are not against the declarant s own penal interest.
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.
