Court Opinion

ID: 9642287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:53:55.197537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:45.598251
License: Public Domain

SHERTZ, Judge,
concurring:
Although I agree with the conclusion reached by the majority, I would affirm on other grounds. Reference to prior criminal activity need not always be deemed so prejudicial as to have denied a defendant a fair trial. Minor, isolated and ambiguous references, such as the one in the instant case, do not mandate a reversal. Commonwealth v. Colon, 264 Pa.Super. 314, 399 A.2d 1068 (1979); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 248 Pa.Super. 420, 375 A.2d 168 (1977).
Warman’s unsolicited response (at 192) did not: (a) identify the Appellant as being the person, or one of the persons, who accompanied Warman “on (their) way back”; (b) indicate where Warman and his unidentified companion(s) were coming from “on (their) way back”; (c) describe the activities of Warman and his unidentified companion(s) at the unspecified location(s) from which they were coming; (d) indicate that Warman, Cole or Appellant had participated in the “prior burglaries”; (e) indicate that Appellant had any knowledge of the “prior burglaries”; (f) indicate when the “prior burglaries” had occurred; nor (g) identify the targets) of the “prior burglaries”. Consequently, Warman’s response, taken in context with the District Attorney's question,1 may reasonably be interpreted to mean that “prior burglaries” of the Gas & Go had been successfully perpetrat*189ed by others, thereby leading Warman to believe that he, Cole and Appellant could similarly burglarize the establishment successfully.
The impact, if any, on the jury, of such an isolated, fleeting, muddled and ambiguous response, was necessarily minor and was allowed to remain so by the trial judge, who appropriately avoided calling undue attention to it, with cautionary instructions.2 Jackson, 248 Pa.Super. at 425, 375 A.2d at 170.

. The question put to Warman by the District Attorney was:
Did you at any time prior to burglarizing, as you say, the Gas and Go, discuss the matter with Mr. Barnhart and the other party you named, Mr. Cole?

. As the majority notes, no such instructions were requested. (At 193).