# Commonwealth v. Harvey

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · August 9, 1985 · 345 Pa. Super. 237

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9727792

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. John HARVEY, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 9, 1985
- **Citations:** 345 Pa. Super. 237; 498 A.2d 378; 1985 Pa. Super. LEXIS 8261
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Olszewski
- **Judges:** Cavanaugh, Olszewski, Hoffman
- **Cited by:** 4 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/9727792

## Opinion text

OLSZEWSKI, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion granting appellant a new trial. I would affirm the judgment of sentence.
The court, sitting as the trier of fact, is presumed to be able to ignore inflammatory evidence or impermissible argu *254 ment. Commonwealth v. Davis, 491 Pa. 363 , 421 A.2d 179 (1980); Commonwealth v. Glover, 266 Pa.Super. 531 , 405 A.2d 945 (1979). The majority acknowledges the court’s detachment, yet in this case holds that the statements at issue were so prejudicial as to overcome that detachment.
Merely because prosecutorial statements are “highly emotional” does not mean they should be presumed to prejudice the court. I would require the appellant to show the prejudicial effect of inflammatory evidence or impermissible argument, evidenced by statements made by the court, before granting a new trial in cases such as the one at bar. Accordingly, since appellant has not shown such an effect, I would affirm the judgment of sentence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9727792. Public record. Not legal advice.