Com. v. Lopinson
| Decision Date | 04 October 1972 |
| Citation | 296 A.2d 524,449 Pa. 33 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Jack LOPINSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
A. Charles Peruto, Oscar Spivack, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., Richard A. Sprague, First Asst. Dist. Atty., James D. Crawford, Deputy Dist. Atty., Milton M. Stein, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY and BARBIERI, JJ.
In 1965, following a jury trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. The jury fixed the penalty at death. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court, Com. v. Lopinson, 427, pa. 284, 234 A.2d 552 (1967). The United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded to this Court for reconsideration in light of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 392 U.S. 647, 88 S.Ct. 2277, 20 L.Ed.2d 1344 (1968). This Court, in turn, remanded the case to the court below for a determination of the Witherspoon issue. The court below found no violation of the standards enunciated in Witherspoon and filed a Report to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to that effect. Appellant filed exceptions to the Report.
Inasmuch as the United States Supreme Court, in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 23, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), has ruled that the imposition of the death penalty under statutes such as the one in which the death penalty was imposed upon appellant * is violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, it is unnecessary for us to consider appellant's claim of non-compliance with the Witherspoon standard. The Supreme Court, in Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 92 S.Ct. 2562, 33 L.Ed.2d 706 (1972), quoting from Witherspoon, stated: See, Com. v. Bradley, Pa., 295 A.2d 842 (1972).
The sentence of death is vacated and appellant is sentenced to life imprisonment.
BELL, former C.J., and BARBIERI, former J., did not participate in the decision of this case.
* Act of June 24, 1969, P.L. 872, § 701, as amended, 18 P.S. § 4701.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Moody
... ... Scoggins, 451 Pa. 472, 304 A.2d 102 ... (1973); Commonwealth v. Ross, 449 Pa. 103, 296 A.2d ... 629 (1972); Commonwealth v. Lopinson, 449 Pa. 33, ... 296 A.2d 524 (1972); Commonwealth v. Sharpe, 449 Pa ... 35, 296 A.2d 519 (1972). Thereafter, the legislature enacted ... incriminating and extenuating, including what manner of man ... the criminal is and has been: Com. v. Wooding, 355 ... Pa. 555, 557, 50 A.2d 328; Com. v. Stabinsky, 313 ... Pa. 231, 237, 238, 169 A. 439; Com. v. Dague, 302 ... Pa. 13, 15, ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Story
... ... Mount, 451 Pa. 582, 300 A.2d 764 ... (1973); Commonwealth v. Senk, 449 Pa. 626, 296 A.2d 526 ... (1972); Commonwealth v. Lopinson, 449 Pa. 33, 296 A.2d 524 ... (1972); Commonwealth v. Sharpe, 449 Pa. 35, 296 A.2d 519 ... (1972); Commonwealth v. Ross, 49 Pa. 103, 296 A.2d 629 ... ...
-
State v. Waddell
...may not now be imposed.' 295 A.2d at 845. (Our italics.) Accord, Commonwealth v. Sharpe, Pa., 296 A.2d 519 (1972); Commonwealth v. Lopinson, Pa., 296 A.2d 524 (1972); Commonwealth v. Ross, 449 Pa. 103, 296 A.2d 629 In Graham v. State, Ark., 486 S.W.2d 678 (1972), the jury found the defendan......
-
Com. v. McKenna
...Commonwealth v. Scoggins, 451 Pa. 472, 304 A.2d 102 (1973); Commonwealth v. Ross, 449 Pa. 103, 296 A.2d 629 (1972); Commonwealth v. Lopinson, 449 Pa. 33, 296 A.2d 524 (1972); Commonwealth v. Sharpe, 449 Pa. 35, 296 A.2d 519 Apparently in response to the void in Pennsylvania law regarding th......