Court Opinion

ID: 9761301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:37:46.977896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:21.864500
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
While I agree with the result reached by the majority writer, I am compelled to write separately because of my belief that the circuitous path which he travels to reach that result unnecessarily complicates what has been, and should remain, a simply stated rule of procedure. Pa.R.Crim.P. 1114 clearly and unequivocally states that “. . . the jury shall not be permitted to have ... a copy of any written confession by the defendant ...” The purpose of this rule, which also prohibits possession by the jury of transcripts of *634trial testimony and copies of the indictment, has often been stated — to prevent the jury from giving undue emphasis to that portion of the evidence. The rule represents a policy determination that these items, specifically enumerated, are of such a character that their possession by a jury during its deliberations is necessarily prejudicial and therefore to be prohibited. I fear that by engaging in an extensive analysis and concluding that “the Rule 1114 violation was plainly prejudicial”, the Court implicitly invites argument on an issue which by rule has properly been placed beyond argument.