Court Opinion

ID: 9649779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:09:22.234391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:15.020845
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Cercone, J.:
I agree with the majority’s treatment of the substantive issues of this appeal, but I find no sufficient reason to grant a new trial herein simply because the record does not include the police officers’ reports of their investigation of the instant crimes. We have a situation where interstate police cooperation, coupled with a thorough and costly investigation, has led to the red-handed capture of appellants with more than one-half ton of marijuana in their possession. Already more than three years have passed since appellants were arrested, undoubtedly because of the complexities of this case; yet, the majority would put the Commonwealth through the expense of re-trying these individuals despite the fact that a simple hearing would supplement the record so that the “harmless error” question could be readily determined. It must appear to all that it is extremely unlikely that anything in the police reports would raise a reasonable doubt about appellants’ guilt, given the facts of this case.1 Therefore, I would remand for a further *495hearing in connection with appellants’ post-trial motions wherein the hearing court could review the police reports or testimony concerning their contents (in camera if necessary), and resolve the question of whether reversible error occurred when the trial court refused to order the Commonwealth to produce them. Ordering a new trial squanders the valuable time and efforts of the police, the district attorney’s office and the trial court, and wastes the taxpayers’ money.
Van der Voort, J., joins in this dissent.

. Even the majority opinion asserts that, “The evidence of appellants’ participation in a distributive chain [of marijuana] is overwhelming.”