Court Opinion

ID: 9804882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 17:16:38.548802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:23:59.124377
License: Public Domain

Justice TODD,
dissenting.
I would not address whether the Fifth Amendment applies in the instant context, because, as Justice Saylor explains, Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater protection and precludes the prosecution’s use of an accused’s silence, except in certain limited circumstances not implicated herein. See Dissenting Opinion (Saylor, J.) at 612 & n. 1, 104 A.3d at 519 & n. 1. In the instant case, Appellant did not testify or otherwise raise any issue upon which his silence had significant probative value, and, thus, the privilege against self-incrimination under our state charter precluded the Commonwealth from using that silence at trial. Moreover, I agree with Justice Saylor that our current harmless error jurisprudence adequately serves the interest of judicial efficiency, and that the Commonwealth’s preferred course ignores this Court’s limited competency in assessing the relative value of witness credibility. See id. at 613-14, 104 A.3d at 520. Finally, under the instant circumstances, I further agree with Justice Saylor that the Commonwealth’s use of Appellant’s pre-arrest silence may well have affected the jury’s verdict and, thus, warrants retrial. Id. at 612-15, 104 A.3d at 519-20. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.