Court Opinion

ID: 9651194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:09:58.530311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:30.849115
License: Public Domain

CAVANAUGH, Judge,
concurring:
I join the majority opinion on all issues with the exception of appellant’s second claim of error. Contrary to the import of the majority opinion, I would find that the appellant has sufficiently articulated his second claim of error for purpose of review.1 The appellant asserts in this claim that the trial court, during the peremptory challenge stage of voir dire and in derogation of Rule 1106, required the prosecution and *12defense to alternate the consideration of jurors, rather than the use of peremptory challenges. This argument has at least technical merit,2 and is worthy of consideration. However, I would find the error harmless, as the appellant has not provided sufficient demonstration of how this error prejudiced him.

. The tenor of our law requires a severe deficiency in advocacy before we will consider a particular issue waived. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Blassingdale, 398 Pa.Super. 379, 394-5, 581 A.2d 183, 190 (1990); Commonwealth v. Jones, 329 Pa.Super. 20, 22, 477 A.2d 882, 883 (1984); Commonwealth v. Balch, 328 Pa.Super. 71, 75-6, 476 A.2d 458, 461 (1984).

. Rule 1106 indicates that a trial judge in a non-capitol case “shall” select one of two alternate methods of voir dire. I note that the record indicates that the procedure the Court used more closely resembled the "List System” on challenges set forth in Pa.R.Crim.P. 1106(e)(2) rather than the "Challenge System” of subsection (e)(1). This procedure requires in pertinent part:
[Pjeremptory challenges then shall be exercised by passing the list between prosecution and defense, with the prosecution first striking the name of a prospective juror, followed by defense, and alternating thereafter until all peremptory challenges have been exhausted.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 1106(e)(2)(F) (emphasis added).