Court Opinion

ID: 9631223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:32:11.456558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:50.684462
License: Public Domain

Justice EAKIN
concurring.
Appellant’s claim based on an inadequate voir dire was not preserved for review and is therefore waived, as the Superior Court correctly found. Commonwealth v. Ellison, No. 1857 Philadelphia 1998, 1999 WL 964593, unpublished memorandum at 4 (Pa.Super. filed June 16, 1999). That court nevertheless reached the merits. The majority opinion also recognizes this claim was not properly preserved, but likewise reviews the merits. See Majority Op., 588 Pa. at 4-5, 902 A.2d at 421-22. I believe this is a dangerous path for our appellate courts to *16travel. See Commonwealth v. Metz, 534 Pa. 341, 633 A.2d 125, 126 (1993) (“However, because we find that Appellant waived this issue, we do not reach it. Nor do we find it appropriate for the Superior Court to have reached it.”) Accordingly, while the claims are likely meritless, I find no basis on which to reach them at all.