Court Opinion

ID: 9964724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 17:11:54.483201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:40.277468
License: Public Domain

J-A06020-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                    Appellant             :
                                          :
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 DALE RICHARD NEILL                       :   No. 445 WDA 2023

              Appeal from the Order Entered March 20, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-33-CR-0000487-2022

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and BECK, J.

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.:             FILED: April 30, 2024

      I agree with the Majority that the Commonwealth’s failure to ensure the

completeness of the certified record on appeal before this Court waives its

claim of error. I disagree, however, with the Majority’s decision to proceed

with an alternative analysis, addressing the substantive claim raised. In my

view, and as the Majority otherwise correctly concludes, the state of the record

impedes our review—therefore, the claim is waived. See Commonwealth v.

O’Black, 897 A.2d 1234, 1240 (Pa. Super. 2006).

      Further, in conducting its alternative analysis, the Majority addresses

only the trial court’s finding that the prior bad acts evidence in question was

properly excluded because it was too dissimilar to constitute a common plan

or scheme. See Maj. Op. at 7-9. The Commonwealth, however, also sought

admission of the evidence to prove Dale Richard Neill’s motive, intent,
J-A06020-24

opportunity, and absence of mistake or accident in the underlying case and

raises arguments in support of these contentions in its brief before this Court.

See Commonwealth’s Brief at 18-22.

      Although I recognize that there is value in conducting an alternative

analysis in many cases, where, as here, the record is so incomplete that the

Court is unable to discern if it supports the trial court’s decision, we are unable

to properly perform our appellate function.           See Commonwealth v.

Montalvo, 986 A.2d 84, 94 (Pa. 2009) (recognizing that the abuse of

discretion standard of review requires a finding based upon the record).

      Simply put, the certified record on appeal is incomplete, precluding this

Court’s review of the claim raised by the Commonwealth on appeal. As the

Commonwealth has thus waived its claim, I respectfully concur in the result

reached by the Majority.

                                       -2-