Court Opinion

ID: 9641489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:33:02.929434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:37.789713
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
The appellant argues that the trial judge should have recused himself because earlier he had heard the defendant *53remark “Well, I have to plead guilty.” The majority argues that there is no need to consider the prejudicial effect of the comment because the trial judge in his opinion disposing of post-verdict motions stated that he did not recall the comment until the issue was raised in post-verdict motions. The opinion of a trial judge, however, is not evidence as to what occurred in the courtroom. Commonwealth v. Young, 456 Pa. 102, 317 A.2d 258 (1974). The official transcript is the proper source to determine what was said in the courtroom. Prescribed procedures for amending an inaccurate transcript were not followed in this case. Pa.R.A.P. 1926. The statement by the trial judge in his opinion involves a matter of credibility which may involve among other things an issue of memory. The trial judge can not act as a fact finder as to whether a comment was made when relying on his own “testimony” outside of the hearing procedures provided by law for correcting a transcript.
ROBERTS, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.