OPINION OF THE COURT

PAPADAKOS, Justice.

Appellant and two accomplices, Eric Joseph and Mark Mitchell, each nineteen years of age, robbed the Metro Oil Company in Philadelphia in February, 1984. On entering the company's premises, the armed actors seized two employees, Adrian Crosby and Thomas Dolan. Mark Mitchell alone was wearing a ski mask. Appellant and Joseph proceeded to a second floor room with Dolan in front of them at gunpoint in order to open a safe. The company's owner, William Gambrell, was sitting in his second-floor office where Appellant fatally shot him twice. Unable to open the safe, the actors fled with weapons found on the premises and money taken from both witnesses. While the one bullet taken from the victim's body was identified as a .38 caliber, the actual weapon used in the crime was never recovered.

Adrian Crosby failed to pick out the Appellant from a photo array but was able to identify him at the preliminary hearing and at trial. Thomas Dolan was shown two photo arrays and selected Baker on the second try. He also picked out the Appellant at trial as the killer of William Gambrell. Other witnesses, Floyd Jenkins and Calvin Budden, identified Appellant and his accomplices from photographs as the persons whom they had seen enter the Metro Fuel Company.

Appellant, who did not testify at trial, originally denied any participation in the crime, insisting that he was repairing the property of Karen Hawkins. When confronted with the conflicting inculpatory statements of witnesses, however, he admitted his presence but stated, in writing to the police, that one of his co-defendants, Eric Joseph, had fired over his shoulder and killed the victim. Following an unsuccessful effort at suppression, a redacted transcription of Baker's statement, dated March 7, 1984, was read at trial. (T.T. September 28, 1984, pp. 4.59-4.70.)

The three co-defendants were tried together before the Honorable Albert F. Sabo and a jury from September 24, 1984, to October 4, 1984, when the jury returned its verdicts of guilt. A separate sentencing hearing was held and on October 5, 1984, the sentencing jury condemned Appellant to death and Joseph and Mitchell to life imprisonment for murder in the first degree. Appellant Baker also received consecutive sentences for conspiracy, robbery, and possessing instruments of crime.

At the penalty hearing, the prosecution presented evidence of Appellant's juvenile adjudications which included one robbery, aggravated assault, and five burglaries. Appellant presented evidence of mitigation.

While on direct appeal to this Court, Appellant, who was represented by new counsel, filed a pro-se petition alleging ineffectiveness of trial counsel. We remanded for an evidentiary hearing in the form of a proceeding under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541, et seq., and Judge Sabo, as indicated below, denied the petition for relief on November 18, 1987.

As in all death penalty cases, we have conducted an independent examination of the evidence to determine if it supports the verdict of guilt. Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 500 Pa. 16, 454 A.2d 937 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 970, 103 S.Ct. 2444, 77 L.Ed.2d 1327 (1983). Our test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, and thus, to determine whether the jury reasonably could have concluded that all elements of the crime were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Syre, 507 Pa. 299, 489 A.2d 1340 (1985).

Our review of the record, as noted herein, clearly established a sufficiency of evidence to support the verdict by the jury.

Appellant raises the following allegations of error. We find those allegations to be without merit and affirm the judgment of sentence.

I. Pre-Trial A. Failure to Suppress Appellant's Pre-Trial Statement

Appellant argues that the inculpatory statement which he gave to the police on March 7, 1984, should have been suppressed on the grounds that its credibility was tainted by his confusion at that moment and that it was the product of coercion. A transcript of the confession was read to the trial court. In his statement, Appellant pointed to an unspecified other "guy" as the killer: "As I got past him, I was looking inside and he put the gun over my shoulder and began firing." (T.T. September 28, 1984, p. 4.66.)

Appellant bases his suppression argument, first, on allegations that there were conflicts in his story. This is a matter of credibility which was fully explored in the jury's presence on cross-examination of the officer who took the statement. (T.T. September 28, 1984, pp. 4.73-4.91, 4.93-4.94.)

Regarding the challenge to the voluntariness of the confession, Appellant later denied having signed the document but stated that the police were going to "put it all on me" unless he signed. At trial, the police officer testified that Appellant carefully read all seven pages. (T.T. September 28, 1984, p. 4.71.) There is no dispute that it is Appellant's signature on the document. (Appellant's Brief, p. 44, acknowledges that he signed it but denies that it was done voluntarily and knowingly.) On these facts, and given the refusal of the Suppression Court to silence the statement, no hard evidence appears on the record to support Appellant's allegation of error. We find neither threats, promises, physical force, nor coercion in this record. Where a defendant is informed of his rights, and he understands them and still makes a voluntary and knowing confession, the statement is admissible in a murder prosecution. Commonwealth v. Franklin, 438 Pa. 411, 265 A.2d 361 (1970).

B. Suppression of the Identification Testimony of Witnesses Thomas Dolan and Adrian Crosby Thomas Dolan

Appellant advances two interwoven reasons in support of his contention that witness Dolan's in-trial court identification should not have been permitted. First, he argues that Dolan's photo identification was uncertain at best; and, second, he maintains that Dolan's ability to identify him at trial was aided immeasurably and improperly by contrived police action which lured him into the preliminary hearing room with Baker present, but without informing Baker's attorney that a line-up was underway.

Dolan was an employee of the Metro Fuel Company and was robbed by co-defendant, Mark Mitchell, during the crime taking place in the company's offices. Dolan also was taken upstairs by the assailants to the second floor office where the killing took place. Shortly afterwards, he was shown two photo arrays by the police. In the first array, Dolan selected a photo which was not Baker's. On the second display, however, he selected Baker and stated that the photograph looked like the shortest one of the three actors more so than the other pictures. Picking out Baker as the killer, Dolan then told the police, according to his testimony at the suppression hearing, that, "I said that's one that looks like him to me." (S.T., September 12, 1984, pp. 192-193).

Dolan also went to the subsequent preliminary hearing to give testimony. As the hearing was about to commence, two police officers told Dolan he could sit inside the courtroom, and there he saw Baker. As Dolan left the courtroom because he was not going to be called as a witness, a detective "asked me, the specific conversation, he asked me if I recognized anyone up there, pointing at no one." (S.T., September 12, 1984, p. 20). Dolan replied to the officer at that moment that the sight of Baker cleared his mind of any doubts regarding the prior identification of Baker. Dolan subsequently affirmed this at the suppression hearing where he was cross-examined as a prosecution witness by defense counsel for co-defendant, Mark Mitchell, and he testified as follows:

Q. You said that when you came to the preliminary hearing, you told Detective Nespoli that now it was clear?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you mean by that? You weren't sure who the person was, you were not sure of the photographs that you viewed?

A. Well, I said I had seen two separate photographs that resembled what I thought was Mr. Baker and because there was a doubt in my mind, which was at the point cleared up at the hearing.

Q. And it wasn't until the preliminary hearing that your mind was cleared?

A. It made me at ease, yes.

At suppression, Appellant unsuccessfully sought to crush all of Dolan's identification testimony. Dolan persisted, however, in his recollection that he had selected Baker's photograph because, "I was able to see the person holding the gun." "Q. He is the one who fired the shot? A. Yes he was." (S.T., September 12, 1984, pp. 192, 194).

As to the effects of encountering Baker at the preliminary hearing, Dolan told the police that seeing Baker had an effect on him: "it cleared up my mind." (S.T., September 12, 1984, p. 195).

At trial, Dolan once again pointed to Appellant as the killer:

Q. What did you see Mr. Baker do, if anything, as he took the half step forward?

A. I saw his hand come out with the gun that he had at my side and fire what I believe was two shots.

Q. What direction was the gun pointed when the two shots were fired?

A. It was pointed directly through the doorway where Mr. Gambrell was sitting.

Q. He was sitting at the desk; is that right?

A. Yes.

(T.T., September 25, 1984, p. 281).

Appellant now insists that the in-trial court identification was tainted by the preliminary hearing where, he concludes, an ex parte informal line-up took place in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings against him. Moreover, Appellant further argues that the certainty of the suppression identification and in-trial court identification was possible only because the witness clarified his earlier photo perception of the killer through the bolstering mechanism of an illegal line-up.

We conclude at the outset of our analysis that Appellant's right of confrontation at the preliminary hearing was violated. In Commonwealth v. Richman, 458 Pa. 167, 320 A.2d 351 (1974), we held that due process requires an attorney's presence at a line-up, and where an identification took place at the preliminary hearing without the knowledge of the defendant's counsel, his rights were impaired. The "Richman Rule" also has been followed in Commonwealth v. Ransome, 485 Pa. 490, 402 A.2d 1379 (1979), and Commonwealth v. Bogan, 482 Pa. 151, 393 A.2d 424 (1978). In both cases, we determined that the remedy for the impropriety was suppression of the evidence. Since it was the defense rather than the prosecution, however, which then injected the identification into the trial evidence, we also decided that the defendants in those two cases could not complain of a constitutional transgression.

In the instant case, we take particular note of the fact that at trial the Commonwealth electively suppressed evidence of its witness' statement to the police after the preliminary hearing, the suppression identification, as well as the evidence of the photo array. That evidence was not used at trial; omission equals suppression.

On this record, Appellant urges us to disqualify the in-trial court identification on the grounds that it was suggestively tainted by the impermissible line-up. The law of this Commonwealth, on the other hand, expresses our greatest concern that such identification evidence be based on its reliability. Commonwealth v. Sexton, 485 Pa. 17, 400 A.2d 1289 (1979), teaches that suggestiveness of confrontation is merely one factor in deciding the issue of reliability. Of course, suggestiveness arising from an illicit preliminary hearing line-up can be negated by a showing that the identification at trial had an independent basis. Commonwealth v. Yarris, 519 Pa. 571, 549 A.2d 513 (1988). The paramount aim of our law, nevertheless, is to judge the reliability of the identification. The relationship between suggestiveness and reliability was stated in Ransome, 485 Pa. at 496, 402 A.2d at 1382-83, following Sexton: "Even if we were to accept appellant's contention that this identification occurred in suggestive circumstances, we cannot accept his claim that the identification was unreliable."

In gauging reliability, we employ a totality of circumstances test. Commonwealth v. Fowler, 466 Pa. 198, 204, 352 A.2d 17, 20 (1976). Specific factors to be taken into account include the prior opportunity of the witness to observe the criminal act; the accuracy of photo array selection and other descriptions; the lapse of time between the act and any line-up; and any failure to identify the defendant on prior occasions. Ransome, 485 Pa. at 496, 402 A.2d at 1382; Commonwealth v. Taylor, 472 Pa. 1, 370 A.2d 1197 (1977). Here we are faced with the task of balancing two circumstances. On one side exists the allegation of inseparable suggestiveness of confrontation and in-court identification. On the other stands the unequivocal trial testimony of Dolan and his photo identifications.

So viewed, the trial record establishes the fact that Dolan was the only witness before the jury who targeted Baker as the killer. To reiterate a crucial point, his testimony was not buttressed by any references to any prior identifications. The prosecution has a right to build its case at trial, and there Dolan's identification evidence stood alone but fully subject to the great truth-finding process of cross-examination. His unshakeable and uncontradicted testimony revealed that he had been threatened by Baker with a gun and had stood near Baker, whose face was uncovered, when the weapon was fired at the victim.

An opportunity to observe, even for a limited moment, can form an independent basis for an in-court identification, Commonwealth v. Holland, 480 Pa. 202, 389 A.2d 1026 (1978), while a prior photographic identification must be taken into account for the same purpose. Taylor, 472 Pa. at 21, 370 A.2d at 1207. Although Dolan's photographic selections resulted in one failure and one success, some weight must be accorded to his second identification.

In working through the legal calculus of the totality of circumstances test, therefore, we are compelled to conclude that the identification was reliable. The ability of the witness to observe in these circumstances then becomes a matter of credibility for the jury's determination. Commonwealth v. Shoatz, 469 Pa. 545, 366 A.2d 1216 (1976); Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 378 Pa. 412, 106 A.2d 820 (1954). That is to say that, following Ransome, even assuming arguendo that suggestiveness lingered on in Dolan's memory, there are sufficient factual circumstances to find that his identification was reliable.

Adrian Crosby

Witness Crosby was the victim's nephew and was working as a dispatcher at the Metro Fuel Company on the day of the crime. He saw Baker and a co-felon enter the premises, pull out guns, and force him to lie on the floor. Baker also took money from him. (T.T., September 25, 1984, pp. 2.16, 2.27-2.29). Soon after the shooting, he described his assailants to the victim's sons who, in response, stated that the description fit a person known as "Herbie" (Herbert Baker). Crosby was shown two sets of photographs but could not select Baker. (S.T., August 10, 1984, p. 38).

The evidence indicates further that prior to entering the preliminary hearing courtroom, a police officer told him that "the guys would be here," inferring the identity of the men sitting at the defense table. (N.T., March 29, 1984, pp. 6-7). Crosby testified at the preliminary hearing and pointed to Baker as one of the actors. (N.T., March 29, 1984, pp. 1-3).

At trial, Crosby repeated all of the above substantive information, except that once again no testimony regarding photographic identifications or statements made at any pre-trial hearings was brought in. Additionally, he was thoroughly examined regarding his observations of the crimes, and the court gave a Kloiber instruction to the jury. (A Kloiber charge is given to caution a jury that identification evidence which is weak or equivocal should be received with caution. Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 378 Pa. 412, 106 A.2d 820 (1954)).

Repeating his allegation as to Dolan's testimony, Appellant argues that Crosby's in-trial court identification should have been suppressed because it, too, was the fruit of an improper preliminary hearing line-up. That line-up was allegedly tainted by two factors: first, the police engaged in an act of identifying the suspects for the witness before he entered the room; and, second, Crosby's identification of Baker at the preliminary hearing was the direct outcome of having had his memory colored by the suggestions made by the victim's sons.

These allegations likewise lack merit. The preliminary hearing was conducted with the full knowledge and participation of defense counsel. The potential suggestiveness made by the victim's sons was explored at trial. (T.T., September 25, 1984, pp. 2.40, 2.49). In any event, we find that the identification was reliable as per our analysis above.

II. Trial A. The Trial Court's Restriction of Defendant's Trial

Appellant alleges in a generic sense that the court "restricted the trial by its rulings." Under this heading, he collects various allegations which are considered separately below.

1) The Court Refused to Charge The Jury to Consider the Evidence Separately as to Each Accused

The record shows, to the contrary, that Judge Sabo instructed the jury: "You will do that for each defendant separately. As I told you before, you consider the evidence against each one separately to make sure the Commonwealth has proven each [charge], whichever one you are deliberating on, if the evidence convinces you of that person's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." (T.T., October 3, 1984, pp. 7.187-7.188). In addition, during the trial, the court told the jury that statements made by one accused could not be considered as evidence against the other. (T.T., September 26, 1984, pp. 3.28-3.29).

2) The Court Refused to Allow Proper Examination of a Police Witness

Appellant claims that he attempted to cross-examine Officer Donald Irons as to "descriptive information which he was told at the scene of the crime by witnesses," which was "highly relevant to the identity of the perpetrators and to the issue of identification." (Brief, pp. 48-49). He now alleges that the court sustained a Commonwealth objection to this cross-examination. The record shows that he asked no questions of Officer Irons at this point, but rather that his co-defendants did. (T.T., September 24, 1984, p. 1.79). He cannot complain about sustained objections to cross-examination questions by the co-defendants. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 474 Pa. 410, 378 A.2d 859 (1977) (defendant may not assert personal rights of another). The supposed "identification information" raised by co-defendant Mitchell, pertained to information "about the height of the tallest person." These questions did not pertain to Appellant because he was the shortest of the defendants. The court did not preclude such questioning, but ruled that such cross-examination was beyond the scope of direct examination, and invited co-defendant Mitchell to call Officer Irons as his own witness, which he did on October 2, during the defense case, at which point the evidence defendant claims was excluded was examined in detail (T.T., October 2, 1984, pp. 6.75-.88). Appellant then asked only one question on cross-examination, eliciting a description consistent with his own height.

3) The Trial Court Sustained Objections to Examining Crosby's Photographic Selections

See footnote 6 herein. The claim lacks merit on the record.

4) Failure to Rule on an Objection

Appellant claims that during the cross-examination of witness Dolan, the court failed to rule on a Commonwealth objection to a question put to Dolan regarding the witness' characterization of the heights of the actors in comparison to his own height. Because of Johnson, we again fail to see Appellant's standing to raise a Commonwealth claim.

5) Admission of Evidence of Other Crimes

Appellant alleges that he was prejudiced by the admission of evidence of other crimes. A Commonwealth witness and friend of co-defendant Eric Joseph, Marcus Argro, was allowed to testify to the fact that several days after the killing of Gambrell, he met Joseph who had a gun which accidentally discharged and hit Argro in the leg. The bullet was recovered by the police, and a police expert then testified that the bullet came from the same type of weapon used to murder Gambrell. The Commonwealth's purpose was to show that Eric Joseph had possession of a weapon similar to the one used to kill Gambrell. Once again we find that this testimony was directed solely at Eric Joseph, not Baker. Indeed, Baker's counsel did not cross-examine either witness since the evidence tended to lessen suspicion of Baker as the killer. (T.T., September 28, 1984, p. 4.53). Defense counsel, however, had objected earlier on the grounds that the evidence was irrelevant. (T.T., September 28, 1984, p. 4.132). The jury was instructed carefully that the shooting of Argro was not to be viewed as indicating that Joseph was a bad character. It had nothing to do with Appellant.

6) Admission of Hearsay Evidence

Appellant argues that the Commonwealth's evidence as to a police officer's efforts to locate a missing witness, Christopher Jews, was hearsay in that the detective testified that relatives and friends of Jews told the detective they did not know where Jews could be located. These statements were not offered for their truth, but to substantiate the detective's efforts to find the witness. They were not hearsay.

7) Examination of Other Witnesses

Appellant claims that it was error for the court to sustain a prosecutor's objection to cross-examination of witnesses by counsel for co-defendant, Mark Mitchell. Baker's own counsel did not examine these witnesses. (T.T., October 1, 1984, p. 5.35), and under Johnson, he has no standing to assert another party's claim.

B. Prosecutorial Misconduct Closing Remarks

Appellant asserts that the prosecutor engaged in improper summations to the guilt jury and, furthermore, that the remarks infected the penalty phase of the proceedings by producing a sanction derived from passion, prejudice, or arbitrariness. While his brief includes a lengthy excerpt of those remarks, he emphasizes the crucial importance of the following statements: the victim "lived the American dream" and the jury should "put [its] arms around the Gambrells and promise the individuals who did this will be held responsible;" "Mr. Gambrell cannot be brought back to his family;" the co-defendants "had voted on agreed unanimously. . . . that they voted he was to die and carried out the execution. . . . it is society's fault that (they) did it is an insult to myself, to Detective Nespoli, to Detective Graham, Sheriff Dade, all of us who grew up on the streets of Philadelphia;" and "what manner of man sits before you." (Brief, pp. 23-24.)

At the guilt phase, we long have held that statements to the jury are not improper unless their "unavoidable effect" is to "prejudice" the jury so that a true verdict cannot be rendered because the existence of bias and hostility makes it impossible to weigh the evidence in a neutral manner. Commonwealth v. Carpenter, 511 Pa. 429, 515 A.2d 531 (1986), and cases collected therein. Within these broad limitations, however, the prosecutor is free to argue that the evidence leads to guilt, and the Commonwealth can press its case with "logical force and vigor." Commonwealth v. Cronin, 464 Pa. 138, 346 A.2d 59 (1975), quoting ABA Standards. On the other hand, a prosecutor "may not indulge in personal assertions of guilt of a defendant either by direct statement or indirectly by figure of speech." Cronin, 464 Pa. at 143; 346 A.2d at 62.

At the penalty phase, however, where the presumption of innocence is no longer applicable, the prosecutor is entitled to "present argument for or against the sentence of death," 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711(a)(3), and may employ "oratorical license and impassioned argument," including a statement that Appellant "showed no sympathy or mercy to his victims." Commonwealth v. Banks, 513 Pa. 318, 521 A.2d 1 (1987), cert. den. 484 U.S. 873, 108 S.Ct. 211, 98 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987). Also, see the cases collected in Commonwealth v. Whitney, 511 Pa. 232, 512 A.2d 1152 (1986).

According to these standards, we find nothing improper about the prosecutor's guilt phase statements. On the contrary, the Commonwealth's representative expressly told the jury that the case should not be decided "on an emotional level," (T.T. October 4, 1984, p. 8.100), while the court itself instructed the jury that closing remarks are not evidence in the case. (T.T. October 3, 1984, pp. 7.189-7. 190.) The presumption in our law is that the jury has followed instructions. Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus, 462 Pa. 43, 55, 337 A.2d 873, 879 (1975). We conclude that the closing remarks were designed to allow the verdict to flow from the evidence within the bounds of proper argumentation. Even if any of the remarks are considered improper, a new trial is not required for every improper remark. Commonwealth v. Perkins, 473 Pa. 116, 373 A.2d 1076 (1977). Only where the unavoidable effect of the remark creates such a bias and hostility that the jury could not render a true verdict will reversal be mandated in this Commonwealth. Stoltzfus, 462 Pa. at 61, 337 A.2d at 882. That is not the case under review.

C. Challenge to the PCHA Hearing

In a pro-se petition, dated June 26, 1985, Appellant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel under the Post Conviction Hearing Act. New counsel was appointed on February 16, 1986, and we remanded to the trial court to consider his claims. On November 18, 1987, Judge Sabo denied the petition for relief. Appellant now appeals that denial in a series of allegations which we reject as either unwarranted or unintelligible.

First, Petitioner alleges error because Judge Sabo "refused to recuse himself." There is no record of any such motion for recusal. Matters which are not of record cannot be considered on appeal. Commonwealth v. Quinlan, 488 Pa. 255, 258, 412 A.2d 494, 496 (1980); Commonwealth v. Young, 456 Pa. 102, 317 A.2d 258 (1974). The only reason advanced to support the notion that Judge Sabo should have recused is that the same judge presided over his jury trial. Our law under Commonwealth v. Boyle, 498 Pa. 486, 447 A.2d 250 (1982), does not disqualify a jurist who conducted the earlier proceedings in the same case.

Second, he alleges error due to the trial court's repeated refusals to appoint an investigator to find numerous witnesses. The claim is meritless.

At no time did Petitioner claim that he needed an investigator to find the witnesses, while in the crucial case of Karen Hawkins, defense counsel visited her home many times. Regarding the myriad other names included in the Appellant's allegation, we find no explanation as to their usefulness as witnesses. Such claims occur in a vacuum and must be rejected.

Appellant next complains that the hearing court did not permit relitigation of suppression issues, these issues had been litigated and, in any case, no related claims were made in the context of ineffectiveness in his petition.

Fourth, Appellant complains that the trial court refused to permit him to testify concerning the peremptory challenges of qualified black jurors. On the contrary, he was permitted to state his personal recollection that eight black jurors were stricken by the Commonwealth.

Fifth, Appellant alleges that the PCHA court would not permit him to testify about the recantation affidavit of witness, Calvin Budden. The denial was based on the fact that defendant had already testified as to the alleged recantation which occurred while both men were in prison during post-trial motions. The matter was previously litigated. At that post-trial hearing, Budden testified that the recantation had been coerced by Baker, was false, and that his trial testimony was truthful.

He also argues that at the PCHA hearing, he was not permitted to ask trial counsel one question as to whether he had made any decision regarding cross-examination of witnesses, Dolan and Crosby, on their appearances at the preliminary hearing. The court then offered to allow Appellant to call trial counsel as his own witness in order to ask him this specific question but Baker chose not to do so. Appellant now states that he wanted to ask questions regarding counsel's understanding of the witness' presence at the preliminary hearing. He did not bring this to the attention of the PCHA court through offer of proof. Also, he fails to explain why he refused to call trial counsel as his own witness.

Seventh, Appellant also insists that the PCHA court unfairly prohibited testimony that co-defendant Eric Joseph allegedly had been shown a statement of the Appellant on March 6, 1984, prior to his arrest. Appellant appears to suggest that this would prove that his confession dated March of the same year was fabricated by the police. Trial counsel was examined on this point by the PCHA court and stated that his own investigation had failed to substantiate Appellant's views.

Appellant next complains that the hearing court halted the testimony of his brother Lawrence and refused to hear the testimony of his brother Eullies, both of whom were present but "could not" manage to return at a later date due to unexplained employment responsibilities.

Obviously, the Appellant was free to subpoena these witnesses, but declined to do so. In any case, the claim is cast now in vague terms purporting error by the PCHA court.

Ninth, Appellant claims that the PCHA court erred by closing the testimony before he could locate witnesses, including especially Karen Hawkins. As noted above, his counsel had located Hawkins and interviewed her, while Appellant offered no basis for calling the others.

Last, Appellant claims that he was denied compulsory process in producing witnesses. It appears from his ambiguous language that he views the alleged absence of compulsory process as the product of the hearing court's failure to afford him an investigator and closing the proceedings before certain witnesses were located. These allegations are patently without any substance as explained above.

D. Allegations of Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel

Appellant raises various claims of ineffectiveness by his trial counsel. While most of these were considered and denied by the PCHA court, they will be reviewed again.

We have decided that ineffective assistance of counsel requires proof that trial counsel missed or mishandled a claim of arguable merit; that there was no reasonable basis for counsel's action; and that this action caused such prejudice to the client that the reliability of the trial is called into question. Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973 (1987). Generalized ineffectiveness claims raised in a vacuum must be rejected. Commonwealth v. Pettus, 492 Pa. 558, 424 A.2d 1332 (1981). It is the Appellant's burden to prove his allegations of ineffectiveness. Counsel is presumed effective. Commonwealth v. Floyd, 506 Pa. 85, 484 A.2d 365 (1984).

Appellant first argues that his counsel failed to cross-examine witnesses Dolan and Crosby on their presence at the preliminary hearing. This claim was not raised in the PCHA petition which alleged only that counsel failed to request a lineup. In any case, these claims have been addressed above.

Secondly, Appellant claims that trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a lineup for Adrian Crosby prior to the preliminary hearing. As trial counsel explained at the PCHA hearing, Crosby had failed to make a photographic identification, and counsel believed he would also fail to identify defendant in person. Appellant has never attempted to prove that Crosby, who recognized him at the preliminary hearing, would have failed to recognize him in a lineup. Since such a lineup identification clearly would have hurt Appellant, trial counsel's strategy was sound.

Third, trial counsel was not ineffective for not requesting appointment of an investigator. Appellant has not met his burden of establishing what, if any, useful information an investigator would have found had one been retained, as explained above.

Appellant next alleges that trial counsel interviewed Hawkins and Young, both of whom Appellant claims could not be found for the PCHA hearing, only briefly and that they were not asked whether there were other persons who saw Appellant on the day of the killing. Because neither Hawkins nor Young could recall seeing the defendant on that date, they could not have identified other persons who had seen Baker.

Fifth, Appellant alleges that his counsel did not interview any of the witnesses prior to trial. There is no evidence of this failure from trial counsel's testimony or anywhere else in the record. Appellant singles out trial counsel's failure to interview Christopher and Annie Jews. Both individuals could not be located even by police. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to speak to unavailable witnesses. Also, Appellant faults trial counsel for allegedly not interviewing Richard Easterling, who was called to the stand and did testify for a co-defendant. There is no evidence to indicate what useful testimony would have been obtained had Easterling been interviewed. This conclusion also applies to his claim that prosecution witnesses were not interviewed.

Appellant claims that trial counsel advised him not to testify, whereas trial counsel testified that he discussed the matter with him and left the final decision up to his judgment. The PCHA court accepted trial counsel's testimony, and counsel cannot be found to be ineffective for Appellant's own decision.

Trial counsel, likewise, is also criticized for not calling co-defendant, Eric Joseph, during suppression to support his contention that his confession was fabricated. Co-defendant Joseph's testimony before trial could well have exposed him to questioning which, in turn, could have incriminated him. Nor does Appellant allege that Joseph would have been willing to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to testify.

We also conclude that counsel was not ineffective for not raising meritless claims of prosecutorial misconduct as discussed above.

Next, Appellant argues that trial counsel failed to request a Kloiber charge as to Thomas Dolan. A Kloiber charge is given as to witnesses who previously have failed to make an identification. As noted earlier, the charge was given as to Adrian Crosby, who had failed to select Baker from a photo array, but Dolan consistently identified him. This claim is meritless.

Additionally, Appellant claims that his trial counsel did not raise a claim under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), which requires that a defendant first must prove that he is a member of a cognizable racial group and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of his race. We point out that Batson was decided two years after the trial of this case.

Lastly, Appellant claims that trial counsel somehow was ineffective for spending his own money to fund a search for character witnesses for the penalty stage. Appellant seems to conclude that his counsel, therefore, was ill-prepared. Of course, some of these witnesses did testify to his good character, and we can find no sensible reason to fault counsel's actions.

III. Penalty Phase A. Admission of Juvenile Record

At the penalty stage, the Custodian of Juvenile records of the Family Court was permitted to read Appellant's record of juvenile adjudications for delinquent acts committed when he was not yet eighteen years of age. The juvenile adjudication record is as follows (T.T., October 4, 1985, pp. 8.30-8.31):

January 1, 1978

burglary, theft, receiving stolen property, criminal trespass, criminal mischief, and criminal conspiracy.

burglary, theft, receiving stolen property, criminal trespass, criminal mischief, and criminal conspiracy.

burglary, theft, receiving stolen property, criminal trespass, criminal conspiracy.

burglary, criminal trespass, attempted theft, criminal conspiracy.

burglary, theft, receiving stolen property, criminal trespass, criminal conspiracy.

robbery, theft, terroristic threats, aggravated and simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, possession of an instrument of crime, possession of a weapon, and criminal conspiracy.

Appellant complains on three grounds: 1) that a juvenile "adjudication," as defined by the Juvenile Act, 1976, P.L. 586, No. 142, Sec. 2, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6354, should not have been admitted into evidence because it does not constitute a "conviction" for purposes of capital sentencing; 2) that while robbery and aggravated assault are crimes of violence, burglary is not; and 3) that it was error to allow the reading to the jury of adjudications other than those for robbery and aggravated assault because those adjudications were not proven to have had the potential for violence or involved actual violence, so that the Commonwealth's evidence was nothing more than mere labels. In the alternative, Appellant asserts that if all the other acts, including especially the burglary, are abstracted from consideration, the remaining count of robbery and count of aggravated assault are insufficient for a finding of "significant history of prior criminal convictions" as an aggravating circumstance. We reject these contentions.

Regarding his first argument that juvenile adjudications are not convictions for the specific purpose of finding an aggravating circumstance for sentencing, we find no basis of support in either statutory law or case law.

This Commonwealth established a separate court with exclusive jurisdiction over accused minors in 1933. Up to that time, youthful offenders were tried equally with adults in the Quarter Sessions Courts. Act of June 2, 1933, P.L.1933, 11 P. S. § 261. Section 19 provided:

No order made by any juvenile court shall operate to impose any of the civil disabilities ordinarily imposed by the criminal laws of the Commonwealth, nor shall any child be deemed to be a criminal by reason of any such order or be deemed to have been convicted of crime. The disposition of a child or any evidence given in a juvenile court shall not be admissible as evidence against the child in any case or proceeding in any other court. (Footnote omitted).

The contemporary counterpart appears in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6354 :

(a) General Rule. — An order of disposition or other adjudication in a proceeding under this chapter is not a conviction of crime and does not impose any civil disability ordinarily resulting from a conviction or operate to disqualify the child in any civil service application or appointment.

(b) Effect in subsequent judicial matters. — The disposition of a child under this chapter may not be used against him in any proceeding in any court other than a subsequent juvenile hearing, whether before or after reaching majority, except:

(1) in dispositional proceedings after conviction of a felony for the purposes of a presentence investigation and report.

Both this Court and the Superior Court found occasion to rule on the issue of whether a record of delinquency could be employed for the determination of sentence of an adult criminal under the Act of 1933, and in each instance of review, these tribunals determined that the juvenile acts indeed were admissible for that purpose. Our seminal case on point is Commonwealth ex rel. Hendrikson v. Myers, 393 Pa. 224, 144 A.2d 367 (1958), where the majority held (Justice Musmanno dissenting on the grounds that the juvenile record was unclear), specifically addressing Section 19, that while the delinquent record could not be used as "evidence . . . in another court," to "deprive the Courts of the right to be informed of and to consider the history and background of the person subject to sentence may result in sentences which are unjust and unfair to both society and defendants." Myers,

393 Pa. at 231, 144 A.2d at 371 (affirming the Superior Court's holding that the "judge was entitled to all of the material facts to inform him as to what kind of offender he was dealing with to assist him in determining the appropriate penalty." 182 Pa. Super. 169, 173-174, 126 A.2d 485, 486-487). The Superior Court in Myers, in fact, baldly concluded that the statute was not applicable to prevent the sentencing judge from considering the defendant's juvenile court record. 182 Pa. Super. at 174, 126 A.2d at 487.

The rationale behind both decisions in Myers derived from our previous ruling in Commonwealth v. Petrillo, 340 Pa. 33, 16 A.2d 50 (1940), where we settled on the broader principle that sentencing judges have wide latitude in considering facts, "regardless of whether such facts are produced by witnesses whom the court sees and hears." Petrillo was a death case. Petrillo's principle was applied in the same manner in Commonwealth v. Johnson, 348 Pa. 349, 354, 35 A.2d 312, 314 (1944). Moreover, the Superior Court applied Petrillo to the 1933 Act and approved the use of juvenile records as sentencing considerations. See, Commonwealth ex rel. Miller v. Maroney, 179 Pa. Super. 305, 116 A.2d 755 (1955); Commonwealth ex rel. Yeschenko v. Keenan, 179 Pa. Super. 145, 115 A.2d 386 (1955); and Commonwealth ex rel. Czarnecki v. Stitzel, 179 Pa. Super. 80, 115 A.2d 805 (1955).

More recent decisions by the Superior Court have affirmed uniformly this rule. Commonwealth v. Woodward, 368 Pa. Super. 363, 534 A.2d 478 (1987); allocatur denied, 520 Pa. 575, 549 A.2d 135 (1988); Commonwealth v. Krum, 367 Pa. Super. 511, 533 A.2d 134 (1987); Commonwealth v. Morio, 302 Pa. Super. 407, 448 A.2d 1106 (1982); and Commonwealth v. Allen, 287 Pa. Super. 88, 429 A.2d 1113 (1981) (citing Myers).

While further analysis of this issue may appear to be superfluous in light of this well-settled authority, we take the opportunity to draw further attention to the fact that Pennsylvania adheres to a system of individualized sentencing which must explore the defendant's prior behavior and dangerousness before sanctions are imposed. For the care of capital sentencing, indeed, is "a function of character analysis . . . and the central idea of the present sentencing statute is to allow a jury to take into account such relevant information, bearing on a defendant's character and record, as is applicable to the task of considering the enumerated aggravating circumstances." Commonwealth v. Beasley, 505 Pa. 279, 479 A.2d 460 (1984) (citation omitted). Such contemporary language reflects the earlier rationale of Petrillo and Myers. In testing Appellant's allegations against our continuing rule on this issue, therefore, we find no merit whatsoever to his assertion.

Appellant's claim that burglary is not a crime of violence runs directly counter to our decision in Commonwealth v. Rolan, 520 Pa. 1, 549 A.2d 553 (1988), where we determined that for purposes of finding an aggravating circumstance "the crime of burglary has always been and continues to be viewed as a crime involving the use or threat of violence to the person."

His last allegation, i.e., that it was error to disclose to the jury that Appellant had juvenile adjudications not proven to have had potential for violence or the use of actual violence, was put to rest by Commonwealth v. Thomas, 522 Pa. 256, 561 A.2d 699 (1989). Here each of the crimes read into the record was part of a burglary or robbery. The crimes arose out of the same acts as those utilized to establish an aggravating circumstance, thereby meeting fully the mandate of Thomas: "Evidence of this crime [indecent assault] was admissible because there was a logical connection between the crimes and because they arose out of the same criminal episode." Thomas, supra, at 276, 561 A.2d at 708; also, see, Commonwealth v. Steele, 522 Pa. 61, 559 A.2d 904 (1989).

IV. Constitutionality of His Death Sentence

Appellant contends that the sentence is constitutionally defective on three grounds.

First, he argues that the sentencing court failed to define adequately the burden of proof as to mitigation. On this point, the court stated:

The Commonwealth has the burden of proving aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has the burden of proving mitigating circumstances, but only by a preponderance of the evidence. This is a lesser burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance of the evidence exists where one side is more believable than the other side. I have already defined for you in the case in chief what is a reasonable doubt.

(T.T., October 4, 1984, p. 8.110).

We find nothing defective in this language. We also reject his attached allegation that the court failed to define reasonable doubt, which it did on two occasions as the judge noted.

Second, Appellant refers to statutory language used in the charge that the verdict must be death if there is at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances, or if the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, and that the verdict must be life in all other cases. (T.T., October 4, 1984, p. 8.111). 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711 (c)(1)(iv). He complains that the court "did not instruct the jury that if the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances, that the verdict must be life imprisonment." (Brief, p. 74). A charge to this effect was unnecessary. The court's charge correctly stated the two instances in which death was required, and charged that in "all other cases," the verdict must be life imprisonment. Obviously, mitigation outweighing aggravation falls within the ambit of "all other cases." The court's charge followed the statute, which decides a "tie," and equal balance of aggravation and mitigation, in favor of the defense. It is also incorrect to conclude that the charge did not adequately and fully explain the manner by which the jury was to make its determination. Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 500 Pa. 16, 454 A.2d 937 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 970, 103 S.Ct. 2444, 77 L.Ed.2d 1327 (1983), reh'g. denied, 463 U.S. 1236, 104 S.Ct. 31, 77 L.Ed.2d 1452 (1983).

The next contention is that he was chosen for death arbitrarily since his two accomplices were not so sentenced. Appellant personally murdered the victim and his punishment was not arbitrary.

Finally, under our statutory duty to review death cases to determine whether the imposed sentence of death is "excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases," according to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711(h)(3)(iii), we have conducted an evaluation of all convictions of murder of the first degree prosecuted under the Act of September 13, 1978, P.L. 756, No. 141, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711. We have reviewed the data and information pertaining to similar cases that have been compiled by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) pursuant to this Court's directive as enumerated in Commonwealth v. Frey, 504 Pa. 428, 475 A.2d 700 (1984). We find that the sentence of death is not excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711 (h)(3)(iii), and that the sentence was not the product of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711 (h)(3)(i).

For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the convictions and affirm the judgment of sentence based on the conviction for murder of the first degree and the sentence of imprisonment imposed for the conviction of possession of an instrument of crime.

NIX, C.J., files a concurring and dissenting opinion joined by ZAPPALA and CAPPY, JJ.

CAPPY, J., files a concurring and dissenting opinion joined by ZAPPALA, J.