Court Opinion

ID: 9751287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:19:52.76956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:42.245785
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice
(concurring).
*271I agree with the result reached by the majority today but I believe it necessary to explain why I have concluded that Allen1 does not require a reversal of the judgment of sentence and an award of a new trial.
In Allen the offensive reference to police photographs was admitted into evidence in such a context that a juror could reasonably infer that the accused had engaged in prior criminal activity. Their testimony pertaining to police photographs was more than a mere passing reference and the record was barren of any explanation of police possession other than as a result of criminal activity on the part of that accused prior to the incident for which he was then standing trial.
Here, when the attorney for the Commonwealth attempted to explain the initial passing reference, the alert counsel for the defense properly objected and the objection was sustained by the trial judge.2 Thus, like Allen, the evidence to which the objection was made was stricken and the only issue presented was whether the trial judge was also required to grant a new trial. A court may properly exercise its discretion in refusing to abort a trial where the error can be corrected and the prejudice cause thereby removed. The learned court by its ruling prevented further inquiry into this area and thus *272blocked the possible introduction of additional prejudicial testimony. More importantly, the record provided an explanation for the police possession of information as. to the residence of this appellant which did not suggest the inference of prior criminal activity on his part. Since the prejudice had been removed and further exacerbation of the error was prevented, I agree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the motion for a new trial. Any juror whose curiosity might have been aroused as a result of possession by the police of information relating to appellant’s possible residences was immediately satisfied that the information was gained as a result of the investigation relating to the charge for which he was then being tried.

. Commonwealth v. Allen, 448 Pa. 177, 292 A.2d 373 (1972).

. [A.D.A.] Q. And when had your attempts to meet Mr. McFadden commenced?
A. Started with the night of the incident when our interview led us to believe that he was a suspect in a homicide, we attempted to locate him at several addresses we had for him.
Q. And what basis were you using to locate Mr. McFadden? A. Addresses from our records (objection sustained and answer stricken)
[Defense C.] Q. Mr. White, do I understand in the course of your investigation, according to your responses to Mr. Reif’s questions, you received fresh input regarding various locations where Mr. McFadden might be found?
A. Yes sir.