Court Opinion

ID: 9762430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:23:27.395819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:34.326199
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I agree with the majority that there is at least arguable merit to appellant’s contention that trial counsel should have prevented the jury from learning about the unrelated crimes for which appellant was arrested in Atlantic City. I am unable to agree, however, that the introduction of evidence of unrelated criminal activity was harmless. See generally: Commonwealth v. Martinez, 301 Pa.Super. 121, 447 A.2d 272 (1982). Therefore, I would remand for an *137evidentiary hearing limited to counsel’s stewardship regarding the introduction of evidence of unrelated criminal activity. By an evidentiary hearing it can be determined whether the course chosen by counsel had a reasonable basis designed to effectuate the interests of his client. If there was such a reasonable basis, the judgment of sentence should be affirmed. If not, appellant should be awarded a new trial.
In all other respects I agree with and join Judge McEWEN’s careful analysis and disposition.