Court Opinion

ID: 9694674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:50:52.925393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:04.564304
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
While I agree with the result reached by the majority in this case, I cannot agree with the majority’s rationale that the police officer somehow “usurpfed] a basic jury function.” Majority opinion at 388. “[N]o witness can usurp the jury’s function even if he wants to.” Lewis v. Mellor, 259 Pa.Super. 509, 520, 398 A.2d 941, 947 (1978). The proper rationale for excluding the officer’s statement is not “usurpation” but prejudice: whatever help the jury might get from the officer’s assessment of the situation is outweighed by the *572danger that the jury will give undue weight to the assessment. The distinction between usurpation and prejudice is not important here but it is in other cases, and the sooner we abandon usurpation as a reason to exclude evidence, the better.