Court Opinion

ID: 9756839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:03:20.716632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:32.094843
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY
BECK, J.:
¶ 1 I agree with the majority and join all parts of its well-reasoned opinion. I would add, however, that the issue regarding appellant’s request to offer evidence that the Commonwealth withheld exculpatory evidence appears to be moot.
¶ 2 First, in light of the majority’s resolution of this case, specifically its analysis under Rule 804(b)(6), the evidence is not admissible. Second, the premise for presenting evidence of the Commonwealth’s conduct is flawed. The trial court characterized the issue in the following manner:
This court cannot decide whether the defendant is entitled to present evidence that the Commonwealth withheld exculpatory evidence with the intent to convict the defendant on less than a full and complete factual basis until the Commonwealth’s ease has been presented.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/19/02, at 15.
¶ 3 As the majority notes, our prior opinion explicitly held that the failure to turn over the statements at issue did not constitute a Brady violation. We further held that there was no wrongful conduct on the part of the Commonwealth. Therefore, appellant simply cannot argue that the Commonwealth withheld exculpatory evidence.