¶1concurring.
¶2I have been sympathetic with the Superior Court’s efforts to implement the approach delineated by a majority of the Court in Commonwealth v. Magliocco, 584 Pa. 244, 883 A.2d 479 (2005), as I have differences with this Court’s continuing assertion that the rationale of Maglioccois self-limiting. Accord Commonwealth v. Miller, 613 Pa. 584, 597, 35 A.3d 1206, 1214 (2012) (Saylor, J., concurring); Magliocco, 584 Pa. at 268-69, 883 A.2d at 494 (Saylor, J., concurring and dissenting). Nevertheless, in the time frame in which this case was decided by the intermediate court, i.e., after Miller’s issuance, it should be reasonably clear that Maglioccohas been effectively limited to its facts. See Miller, 613 Pa. at 595-96, 35 A.3d at 1213.
¶3As to the decision in Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 515 Pa. 98, 527 A.2d 106 (1987), I believe that it is subject to multiple, reasonable interpretations, and I have no difficulty with the majority’s present disapproval, to the extent that Gonzalezmay be read as incorporating the premise that inconsistent verdicts are impermissible. My only caveat is that I continue to recognize that there are mixed policy considerations attend*121ing the longstanding practice of accepting inconsistent verdicts, and, thus, I would not foreclose further review of such approach, upon developed policy argumentation on an order of which we are not generally seeing in this line of cases. Accord Miller, 613 Pa. at 597, 35 A.3d at 1214 (Saylor, J., concurring); Magliocco, 584 Pa. at 268-69, 883 A.2d at 494 (Saylor, J., concurring and dissenting).