V. Motion for Bifurcation of Guilt and Penalty Phases Appellant’s next two claims will be discussed simultaneously as they both involve his 1995 murder conviction in Maryland. The Commonwealth gave Appellant pretrial notice that during the penalty phase of trial, it would rely on his prior murder conviction as evidence of the aggravating circumstance that “[t]he defendant has been convicted of another murder committed in any jurisdiction and committed either before or at the time of the offense at issue.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(d)(ll). Appellant argues that the trial court erred during pretrial voir dire by precluding him from asking potential jurors whether they would be influenced adversely or would otherwise be unable to follow the court’s instructions after learning that he , 37 (2012) (<HOLDING>). It is well established that the scope of voir
recognizing that the due process guaranteed under the alabama constitution is coextensive with the due process guaranteed under the united states constitution holding that because the due process clause in the federal constitution is applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment the right is also guaranteed to defendants pursuant to the identical provision in article i section 5 of the hawaii constitution holding that it is wellsettled that the sixth and fourteenth amendments of the united states constitution guarantee a defendant on trial for his life the right to an impartial jury holding that the death penalty does not violate the prohibition against cruel punishments set forth in article 1 section 13 of the pennsylvania constitution holding that a criminal defendants right to an impartial jury is guaranteed by article 1 section 9 of the pennsylvania constitution