*1 GRANTED, for No. 19 Appeal Petition Allowance Docket, Appeal W.D. 1986.
COMMONWEALTH of SIMON, Respondent. Robert Ronald March ORDER PER CURIAM: NOW, March, 1986, this 19th the Order of day
AND Allegheny County, the Court of Common Pleas of Criminal Division, 11, 1985, entered October at No. CC8406482 matter is The matter is remanded above-captioned vacated. respondent’s right to to raise the prejudice for trial without appeal. on direct NIX, C.J., ZAPPALA, J., statements. dissenting file NIX, Justice, dissenting. Chief I dissent. attempts to assert
The claims it is for this Court premature inappropriate principle long It has a them in the abstract. been dire voir standing objections this Commonwealth not party has objecting not entertained where the will See, Common- peremptory challenges. exhausted its Morales, wealth Romeri,
monwealth v.
L.Ed.2d
*2
Rundle,
ex rel.
v.
Ryan
Commonwealth
;
(1984)
411 Pa.
denied,
cert.
948,
358,
613,
362,
A.2d
375
84
192
U.S.
S.Ct.
Moon,
Commonwealth v.
(1963);
277
Pa.
11 L.Ed.2d
389
dismissed,
cert.
304,
224,
908,
132 A.2d
355 U.S.
78
S.Ct.
Bibalo,
Commonwealth v.
335,
(1957);
2
375
L.Ed.2d 270
v.
Spahr,
Commonwealth
257,
(1953);
Pa.
Moreover, reached, merits are to the it would be argument. The appropriate procedure adopted to allow oral response the trial court formulated in to its conclu by was the results in em death-qualification process sion that the juries conviction-prone unrepre which and paneling Illinois, Witherspoon v. community. of the In sentative 510, 1770, the 88 S.Ct. 20 L.Ed.2d empirical the data then Supreme States Court found United fragmentary” support “too available tentative Id. at 517, the wake conclusion. S.Ct. at Witherspoon, however, increasing reli numerous studies have been conducted. See Common precision ability Maxwell, 505 Pa. wealth v. 152, 171-75, 477 — —, 370, 83 1320-21, U.S. (1984) (Nix, C.J., dissenting). The L.Ed.2d 306 United agreed has a case recently Court States the death- provide opportunity the to reevaluate which will Lock in of the data now available. light issue — McCree, —, hart v. 88 L.Ed.2d U.S. 106 S.Ct. Lockhart in dispositive will be (1985) . the decision While Constitution, indepen has this Court an under the federal death-qualification pro to reevaluate the responsibility dent See law. state constitutional as a matter of cedure Sell, (1983). Unlike monwealth Pa. issue has been death-qualification the cases which prior Colson, Commonwealth v. raised, Szuchon, (1985); A.2d 811 Maxwell, supra, Commonwealth v. record includ- presents evidentiary matter a full the instant The ma- empirical expert testimony. studies and ing both ruling of the trial court’s is summary rejection jority’s highly inappropriate. therefore Justice, ZAPPALA, dissenting. assume of the plenary jurisdiction
I dissent and would important For the first time the matter before us. an providing us with crystallized, here has been presented the conflict. This with which to resolve adequate vehicle and, the use of grasp opportunity by should reach its final conclu- briefing argument, and oral extensive ourselves with the doing, provide In so we would sion. *3 establish this Commonwealth’s posi- intelligently vehicle past our illustrious qualified juries revive tion on juris- regarded polestars as one of the history being nation, popular than a follower of in this rather prudence hard, constitutional fundamental deferring all the trends federalism, its attendant buzzwords with decisions act, query my I must brethren failing to so confusion. remains what, vitality any, independent as to it affords rights and the of this Commonwealth Constitution governed thereunder. choose to be the citizens who HORTON, H. Charles PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH AND PAROLE. PROBATION BOARD OF Jan.