Case Title: Commonwealth v. DeJesus (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2005-08-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-125-2003] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JOSE DEJESUS, Appellant : : : : : : : : : : No. 246 CAP Appeal from the judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (Lineberger, J.), dated September 29, 1998 at No. 351 November Term, 1997. SUBMITTED: August 27, 2003 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO DECIDED: August 17, 2005 I write separately merely to note that I am not convinced that the trial court's instruction to the jury regarding the limited purposes of the testimony concerning Appellant's possession of a sawed-off shot gun "negated" the prejudice suffered by Appellant from this testimony, which undoubtedly placed him in a bad light. See Majority Slip Op. at 10-11; see also, e.g., Commonwealth v. Richardson, 437 A.2d 1162, 1166 (stating that certain clearly prejudicial testimony cannot be cured by instructions) (Nix, J., dissenting); id. (same) (Roberts, J., dissenting). Nevertheless, I agree with the majority that any error in admitting this evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of Appellant's guilt, including, most predominantly, his own confession.