Court Opinion

ID: 9673243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:09:02.026346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:21.149170
License: Public Domain

*321HEFFERNAN, J.
(concurring) This writer doubts the correctness of the formulation of the harmless error rule in Wold relied upon in the majority opinion. Under that rule no error can be prejudicial if the evidence properly admitted is highly probative of guilt. This is an invitation for prosecutorial abuse. There is always a temptation for a prosecutor to make a good case better by urging admission of dubious or improper evidence. The Wold rule gives no recourse against errors which may well have a substantial impact upon the jury’s finding of guilt. The philosophy of Wold is simply that a person who may properly be found guilty under admissible evidence cannot be deprived of a fair trial because of error, even though that error contributes substantially to the finding of guilt. Wold, erroneously I believe, places the emphasis upon the admissible evidence rather than upon the alleged error. Attention should be focused on whether the error prejudices the rights of the defendant.
When Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 49 L. Ed.2d 342, 96 S. Ct. 2392 (1976), refers to the usual harmless error rule as being such that, “. . . when error is present in the record, the reviewing judge must set aside the verdict and judgment unless his ‘conviction is sure that the error did not influence the jury, or had but only slight effect’ . . .” (427 U.S. at 112, 49 L. Ed. at 354), it is clear that the United States Supreme Court speaks of a rule different than that adopted in Wold.
While there are opinions of the United States Supreme Court that appear to support the Wold analysis, Agurs, arguably at least, indicates a withdrawal from those cases.
In any event it is the opinion of this writer that in an appropriate case the Wold rule should be reconsidered in light of Agurs and in light of the obvious overbreadth of the rule. In view of the majority’s conclusion that the *322error would in this case, under either test, be harmless, I concur in the result.
Abrahamson, J., took no part.