# Commonwealth v. Busanet

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 19, 2012 · 618 Pa. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4966244

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Jose BUSANET
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 19, 2012
- **Citations:** 618 Pa. 1; 54 A.3d 35; 2012 Pa. LEXIS 2476; 2012 WL 5077556
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Saylor
- **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, McCaffery, Melvin, Saylor, Todd
- **Cited by:** 365 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4966244

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that defendant had failed to prove that there was any “exculpatory or impeaching evidence that the Commonwealth had an obligation to disclose under Brady” where PCRA court found the Commonwealth’s evidence was more credible on the issue of whether the alleged Brady mat…
- holding that a witness’s testimony that another individual told him and the defendant that the victim had robbed the individual was not hearsay when it was not offered to show that the robbery occurred but to show only that the statement had been made to the defendant and moti…
- stating “reversible error arises from a prosecutor’s comments only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jurors, forming in their minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a fair verdict”
- stating, “[w]hile evidence of prior bad acts is inadmissible to prove the character of a person in order to show conduct in conformity therewith, evidence of prior bad acts may be admissible when offered to prove some other relevant fact, such as motive, opportunity, intent, p…
- holding that defendant’s Brady claim failed when he failed to prove the existence of “exculpatory or impeaching evidence that the Commonwealth had an obligation to disclose under Brady”

## Opinion text

Justice SAYLOR,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with Appellant’s position that: the trial court erred by overruling the defense objection to Commonwealth rebuttal evidence of a remark by Appellant that he contemplated assassinating attendees (presumably, the victim’s family and friends) at the funeral for the victim; the inflammatory effect of such evidence substantially outweighed its probative value, particularly in light of the Commonwealth’s otherwise very substantial case of guilt; and appellate counsel lacked any reasonable basis for failing to advance the salient claim of trial court error. I support the majority’s holding affirming the order of the post-conviction court as to the guilt phase based on an evaluation of the prejudice criterion of the ineffective inquiry, again, in view of the strong evidence of guilt. However, given the significant possibility of spillover prejudice which may have affected the penalty determination, I would vacate the death verdict and remand for a new sentencing hearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4966244. Public record. Not legal advice.