A bill passed by the General Assembly in December could authorize lower courts to reinstate death penalties overturned by appellate courts, giving Pennsylvania's death row inmates not one, but two chances to lose their lives.

The bill enables lower courts to reimpose the death penalty in cases where an appeals court has set aside the original death sentence due to technicalities.

Since electrocution was legalized in Pennsylvania in 1913, 350 people have died in the electric chair. The last was Elmo Smith in 1962 for the rape-slaying of a young woman, said Iris Crumbly of the state Department of Corrections.

One hundred inmates currently sit on Pennsylvania's death row, awaiting execution in the state's only electric chair at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview.

According to the December law, if the court determines that a death penalty must be vacated because no "aggravated circumstances" are suppported, or the sentence of death is disparate in comparison to similar cases, the penalty automatically becomes a life sentence, Kearney said.

If the death penalty is vacated for technical or any other reasons, then the case returns to the original court that heard it and a new sentencing hearing is held, Kearney said.

The significance of the new law will become clearer when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court renders its decision about a case concerning the method of execution, said Roberta Kearney, former executive assistant to Sen. Mike Fisher, R-Allegheny.

Fisher, along with state Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, became involved with the legislation in July 1987, and introduced the bill in November 1988.

In 1979, a new death penalty law was passed in Pennsylvania, replacing the previous one passed in 1913. But the 1979 law fails to prescribe a method of execution, said Barry Steinhardt, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.

The 1913 statute provided for the sentencing process and for the method of execution, but the limited procedures for arriving at a death sentence are clearly unconstitutional, Kearney said.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's investigation to determine if a valid method of execution exists was triggered by the case of Roderick Herman Frey, Kearney added.

Frey was sentenced to die in the electric chair for his role in a contract killing that resulted in the death of his wife. His execution was scheduled for June of last year, but was postponed.

His death warrant, signed March 20, 1981, was challenged by his attorneys, who claimed that if any part of the 1913 statute is invalid, the entire statute must be thrown out, she explained.

The investigation was closed and the case was argued in September; no time limit dictates when the court must render its decision.

One line of thinking in the passage of the December law is that if the court says the law is invalid, everyone on death row would automatically receive life sentences.

The December law had to take effect before the court delivers its decision, so that new sentencing hearings can be held if the death penalty is overturned, Kearney said.

If the court decides there is no valid method of execution because of the potential invalidity of the 1913 statute, legislators would most likely act expediently and pass a new law qualifying the method of death, she added.

"If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules our way, we will be in an unprecedented situation," Steinhardt said.

There are 12 aggravating circumstances surrounding death penalty law, including:

-- Past criminal record.

-- Torture.

-- The victim was a firefighter, police officer or public servant on duty.

-- The defendant is a contract killer.

-- The victim was held hostage for ransom.

-- The victim was killed during a hijacking.

-- The victim was going to be a witness in a case against the defendant. If the death penalty was dismissed under the 1979 law for technical reasons, the defendant automatically received a life sentence and a second chance to reinstate the death penalty was null, said Kathy Eakin, counsel to the Senate judiciary committee.

Inefficiency of counsel claimed by a defendant is grounds for dismissal if the attorney concedes inefficiency in representing a client, Eakin said.

The legislation was primarily supported by the District Attorneys Association, Eakin said.