Court Opinion

ID: 9748985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:19:50.087443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:41.434769
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
COLVILLE, J.:
¶11 join the Majority. I write separately to highlight an area of the law which, in my view, is unclear.
¶ 2 In discussing the admissibility of evidence, our Supreme Court has stated:
... [A]n erroneous ruling by a trial court on an evidentiary issue does not require us to grant relief where the error is harmless....
The Commonwealth bears the burden of demonstrating harmless error....
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 588 Pa. 19, 902 A.2d 430, 452-53 (2006) (emphasis added).
¶ 3 Here, we hold that the trial court’s error in admitting into evidence the rifle ammunition, scopes, and scope mount constituted harmless error. The potential problem with this holding is that the Commonwealth has made no argument on appeal that the trial court’s error in this regard was harmless. Thus, it cannot be said that the Commonwealth has demonstrated that the erroneous admission of this evidence was harmless.
¶ 4 Caselaw exists, however, in which appellate courts of this Commonwealth have failed to expressly require the Commonwealth to prove harmless error. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Robinson, 554 Pa. 293, 721 A.2d 344, 350 (1998) (“[Ojnce it is determined that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence, the inquiry becomes whether the appellate court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that such error was harmless.”). Due to the existence of caselaw such as Robinson and because, in this matter, the trial court’s error in admitting into evidence the rifle ammunition, scopes, and scope mount truly was harmless, I am able to join the Majority.