Court Opinion

ID: 9649613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:03:32.97518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:13.152582
License: Public Domain

McEWEN, P.J.E.,
concurring.
¶ 1 The author of the majority opinion has undertaken a careful and persuasive analysis of appellant Foreman’s arguments, and I hasten to join in the rejection of his claims. However, while I likewise agree with the majority in its decision to uphold the Commonwealth’s cross-appeal, I do so on a different basis.
¶ 2 Since Foreman’s trial counsel did not challenge the police officer’s testimony on Frye/Topa grounds, the burden was on post-trial counsel to demonstrate that this failure constituted ineffectiveness. Post-trial counsel was thereby obliged, at a minimum, to show that Foreman was prejudiced by trial counsel’s inaction. See: Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973 (1987). During the post-trial hearing, appellant offered no evidence that the Commonwealth’s expert’s methodology was unscientific, nor that an objection to his testimony would have or should have been sustained. Hence, in my view, the trial judge had no basis upon which to find that trial counsel was ineffective.
¶ 3 Nonetheless, as earlier mentioned, I join in the ruling of the majority.