Court Opinion

ID: 9748028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:49:28.623029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:30.766090
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I agree with the majority that the record is adequate to permit appellate review of the trial court’s ruling which refused to receive expert opinion and documentary evidence to show the reasonableness of appellants’ several beliefs that the crimes which they admittedly committed were justified by the greater harm they were demonstrating against. That said, I hasten to put distance between myself and the majority opinion.
The decision of the majority, in my judgment, has so liberally expanded the purpose of the justification defense that it will inevitably encumber unnecessarily criminal trials in the future. Today we are concerned with trespassing demonstrators; tomorrow we may be required to deal with fanatic terrorists.
Having reviewed the record, I find myself in full agreement with the author of the dissenting opinion who concludes that appellants’ offer of proof failed to establish the defense of justification which has been made available by 18 *99Pa.C.S. §§ 503 and 510. Therefore, I join the portion of the dissenting opinion which would hold that the trial court’s exclusion of appellants’ evidence was proper. Evidence of danger inherent in the use of nuclear power is irrelevant to appellants’ guilt or innocence of criminal trespass. I would affirm the judgments of sentence.