Court Opinion

ID: 9701676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:30:11.111113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:27.228718
License: Public Domain

*388CONCURRING OPINION BY
DEL SOLE, P.J.:
¶ 1 I agree with the Majority’s decision to quash the appeal in this case. As the Majority recognizes, the trial court’s order in this matter has not terminated or substantially handicapped the Commonwealth’s case.
¶ 2 However, I cannot accept the Majority’s statement that if the trial court ultimately denies a motion in limine and permits the defense to adduce psychological evidence to which the Commonwealth objects, the prosecutor may certify an interlocutory appeal under Rule 311(d). For the reasons expressed in my Dissenting Opinion in Commonwealth v. Jones, 826 A.2d 900 (Pa.Super.2003), I believe such an appeal is not authorized by the Rule. The Commonwealth possesses the right of appellate review of the validity of a pretrial order which excludes Commonwealth evidence and thereby substantially handicaps its prosecution. An order permitting a defendant to introduce certain evidence should not be subject to a right to appeal under Rule 311(d).
¶ 3 McEWEN, P.J.E., TODD, J., and BENDER, J. joined in this Concurring Opinion by DEL SOLE, P.J.E. .