Court Opinion

ID: 9766343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:42:24.565367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:21.549358
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice
(dissenting).
In the appellant’s first appeal to this Court we determined that he was entitled to confront Harold DeWolf absent “exceptional and compelling reasons.” See Commonwealth v. Wilder, 461 Pa. 597, 337 A.2d 564 at 568 (1975). The burden therefore, was on the prosecution to come forward with evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that “exceptional and compelling reasons” existed to justify denying the appellant his right to confront the witness.
After reviewing the record, I fail to see how the prosecution has met this burden by introducing into evidence the contemporaneous medical records of Harold DeWolf and the conflicting testimony of Dr. Brooks.
On these facts I would hold that there is insufficient evidence in the record to sustain the findings of the trial court, and accordingly I would reverse.