Court Opinion

ID: 9695567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:23:13.261536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:14.208892
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Hoffman, J.:
I respectfully dissent. In this relatively short trial the Commonwealth introduced evidence of acquittals, ignored bills of' conviction and conviction for misdemeanors not involving crimen fálsi. The majority eón-' eludes, however, that a judge knows that such improper evidence must- be. stricken from consideration.
It is true that when a judge sits without a .jury we need not be as' fearful of the confusion or prejudice-possible at a jury trial. When, as here, however, a significant portion of the record deals primarily with the *424inadmissible evidence noted above, there is sufficient reason to suspect that even a judge may be unable to wholly dispel from his mind the prejudicial effects of such evidence. The frequent improper references to appellant’s prior contacts with the law were, in my opinion, so potentially dangerous that we should not assume that the judge was able to ignore them completely in passing on guilt and in sentencing.
I would order a new trial.