The opinion
MELINSON, Judge,
concurring:
In reviewing a trial court’s grant of a new trial, this court’s standard of review “generally is whether the trial court palpably and clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case.” Westinghouse Elevator Co. v. Herron, 514 Pa. 252, 256 , 523 A.2d 723, 725 (1987). See also Thompson v. City of Philadelphia, 507 Pa. 592 , 493 A.2d 669 (1985); Nicholson v. Garris, 418 Pa. 146 , 210 A.2d 164 (1965). Abuse of discretion is not the issue, however, when the trial court gives only a single reason for its grant of a new trial. In that instance, the validity of the legal justification of the trial court is the sole issue on appeal. Westinghouse, 514 Pa. at 256 , 523 A.2d at 723 . As set forth in Penneys v. Segal, 410 Pa. 308, 311 , 189 A.2d 185, 187 (1963):
When it clearly appears from the opinion of the court below on the new trial motion, “that except for the reason relied upon by the court for granting a new trial, judgment would have been entered on the verdict, the action of the lower court becomes reviewable, not for an abuse of discretion, but for the legal merit of the sole and exclusive reason assigned for the granting of the new trial____” [citations omitted].
The sole reason which the lower court gave for its grant of a new trial in this case was that the Commonwealth had the burden of proof to negate the exceptions and authorizations set forth in Sections 5704 and 5708 of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Section 5701 el seq., and did not undertake to do so.
For the reasons stated in Judge Cereone’s able analysis on this issue, the trial court’s ruling was an error of law. For this reason, I concur in the reversal of the trial court’s order granting the Commonwealth (Appellant) a new trial.