Court Opinion

ID: 9759160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:07:46.841341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:59.883143
License: Public Domain

MONTGOMERY, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in the majority’s disposition of the Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100 issue and the insufficiency of the evidence claim, but respectfully dissent as to the grant of a new trial.
The majority determined that trial counsel’s failure to object to the testimony of the only witness who could connect appellant to the crimes constituted ineffective assistance. The questioned testimony purportedly suggested that appellant had engaged in criminal conduct other than that for which he was being tried.
I do not disagree with the majority’s interpretation of the law as it relates to this issue; but I do disagree with its application. When the exerpted testimony is read in light of the entire record, it is not harmfully prejudicial. • The challenged statement did not tend to show prior criminal activity, but addressed the question of the accomplice’s credibility and applied to the instant criminal conduct. His brief *569allusion to fear of reprisal on direct and cross-examination without more is insufficient for a finding of harmful prejudice. As a result, I would find that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the questioned testimony as the underlying claim is meritless. Commonwealth v. Weathers El, 485 Pa. 28, 400 A.2d 1295 (1979). His particular chosen course, therefore, had a reasonable basis designed to effectuate appellant’s interest. Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A.2d 349 (1967).