Court Opinion

ID: 9774874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:36:47.834556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:17.458972
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
COLVILLE, J.
Appellant certainly had the constitutional right to testify during the presentation of his defense. He chose to waive that right. After the case was closed but before the jury received their instructions, Appellant asked that he be permitted to testify. The Majority appropriately considers this request as a request to reopen the case. The law which governs such a request is well-settled.
Under the law of this Commonwealth a trial court has the discretion to reopen a case for either side, prior to the entry of final judgment, in order to prevent a failure or miscarriage of justice.
Commonwealth v. Tharp, 525 Pa. 94, 575 A.2d 557, 559 (1990) (citations omitted).
At trial, Appellant offered no reason for his belated desire to testify. He, therefore, did not establish a need for his testimony to prevent a failure or miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant’s request to reopen the case. For these reasons, I, too, would affirm the judgment of sentence.
The Majority announces a new test a trial court must apply when a defendant seeks to reopen his case to offer his testimony. Majority Memorandum at 911 (“In exercising that discretion, a trial court must consider whether the likely value of the [defendant’s] testimony outweighs the potential for disruption or prejudice in the *912proceedings, and whether the defendant has a reasonable excuse for failing to present the testimony during his case-in-chief.”). After announcing this new test, the Majority discerns no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
I reserve any comment on the propriety of the new test announced by the Majority because I believe the current state of the law is sufficient to dispose of Appellant’s issue. I note, however, that neither the record nor the trial court’s opinion support a conclusion that the court considered whether the likely value of Appellant’s testimony outweighed the potential for disruption or prejudice in the proceedings, and whether Appellant had a reasonable excuse for failing to present the testimony during his case-in-chief.