Court Opinion

ID: 9764245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:16:51.712841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:55.272345
License: Public Domain

POMEROY, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority concludes that the stenographer’s inadvertent loss of the tape recordings of the closing argument made by the prosecuting attorney to the jury at appellant’s trial renders effective appellate review in this Court impossible. The conviction is therefore reversed and a new trial ordered. I must respectfully dissent.
It is possible to imagine a situation where effective appellate review is foreclosed because only a small portion of the trial transcript is missing. It is also true, of course, that an improper closing argument by the prosecutor may, in and of itself, deny a defendant a fair trial. See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Joyner, 469 Pa. 333, 365 A.2d 1233 (1976). It is clear, however, that before this Court will reverse a convic*113tion on the ground that a missing segment of the record deprives the defendant of a meaningful appeal, some clear prejudice to appellant must be alleged. Commonwealth v. Goldsmith, 452 Pa. 22, 304 A.2d 478 (1971); Commonwealth ex rel. Goldsmith v. Myers, 430 Pa. 385, 243 A.2d 429 (1968). I cannot conclude that even the possibility of any such prejudice has been established here.
Appellant makes only the most general claim of prosecutorial misconduct; no inkling is given as to what the lawyer for the Commonwealth said or how he behaved or what this portion of the record might show if available.1 In short, nothing is alleged to the effect that Shields was deprived of a fair trial.
I adhere to the view I expressed in dissent in Commonwealth v. Goldsmith, supra, that a defendant is entitled to relief only where his grounds for error make out a colorable need for the missing portion of the transcript:
“As correctly noted in the Court’s opinion, appellant has not been deprived of a transcript through any fault of the Commonwealth. Rather, the untimely illness of the court reporter immediately following trial, his subsequent death, and the inability of any other reporter to read his shorthand notes combined to limit the transcription to only 309 pages of testimony from the five-day trial. The Supreme Court of the United States, faced with a similar situation arising in an Illinois trial, i. e. unavailability of the trial transcript due to the death of the court reporter, held that Due Process and Equal Protection did not require the *114state to afford the defendant a new trial. Norvell v. Illinois, 373 U.S. 420, 83 S.Ct. 1366, 10 L.Ed.2d 456 (1963). That case, in my view, is controlling here. Said the Supreme Court: ‘When through no fault of the State, transcripts of criminal trials are no longer available because of the death of the court reporter some practical accommodation must be made. . . . “The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific. . . . What is best is not always discernible; the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned.” The “rough accommodations” made by government do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment unless the lines drawn are “hostile or invidious.” ’ Id. at 424; 10 L.Ed.2d at 459.” * * * * * *
“It is not unwarranted to assume that such errors are alleged only because a transcript of that portion of the trial cannot be reproduced. In an analogous situation, the Supreme Court of the United States held that where a defendant’s grounds for error make out a colorable need for a complete transcript, the burden is on the state to show that something less will suffice. Mayer v. Chicago, [404 U.S. 189, 92 S.Ct. 410, 30 L.Ed.2d 372 (1971)], supra, 404 U.S. at 195, 92 S.Ct. at 415, 30 L.Ed.2d at 378-379. To require in the instant case, where part of the transcript is unavailable through no fault of the state, the showing of a colorable need for the missing portion seems to me to be the type of ‘rough accommodation’ sanctioned by Norvell. While avoiding the automatic release of those with spurious challenges, it affords those with meritorious claims the opportunity to vindicate their rights.” 452 Pa. at 32-34, 304 A.2d at 484-485. (Dissenting opinion of POMEROY, J.).
Appellant in the case at bar presented no argument whatsoever as to how he was prejudiced by the Commonwealth’s closing argument. Moreover, we are told by the trial court *115in its opinion denying post-verdict motions that he can recall no prosecutorial improprieties in the closing argument.2
Having failed to raise a colorable claim of prejudice resulting from the incomplete record, appellant is entitled to no relief on that ground. Hence this dissent.
LARSEN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

. For instance, prosecutorial misconduct may result in reversible error where counsel for the Commonwealth expresses his personal beliefs regarding guilt or innocence, Commonwealth v. Joyner, supra; Commonwealth v. Russell, 456 Pa. 559, 322 A.2d 127 (1974); Commonwealth v. Lipscomb, 455 Pa. 525, 317 A.2d 205 (1974), or expresses his opinion as to the credibility of the defendant or particular defense witnesses, Commonwealth v. Joyner, supra; Commonwealth v. Potter, 445 Pa. 284, 285 A.2d 492 (1971), or refers to matters not of record; Commonwealth v. Revty, 448 Pa. 512, 295 A.2d 300 (1972). For a general treatment of the proper scope of a prosecutor’s closing argument, see the American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function, § 5.8 (Approved Draft, 1971).

. The pertinent portion of the opinion of Judge Lagakos for the court en banc reads as follows:
“[D]efense counsel has been unable to point to a single improper remark allegedly attributable to the District Attorney, nor do our own notes reveal any such improper comments having been made.
ifs ‡ ‡ sf;
“We are compelled to conclude that were the remarks of the prosecutor in the instant case such as to fall within the bounds of this standard [Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 439 Pa. 348, 355, 266 A.2d 726 (1970)], certainly defense counsel would have taken note of them, even without resort to the transcript, as would this Court. Accordingly, we must therefore conclude by this standard that where as here, the verdict rendered was a just one, in that the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, any improper remarks of the District Attorney, if there were any, were clearly harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We reemphasize that there were no improper remarks.”