concluding that an error was harmless where the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the error so insignificant by comparison, that the error could not have contributed to the verdict
How later courts described this case
- concluding that an error was harmless where the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the error so insignificant by comparison, that the error could not have contributed to the verdict
- holding error harmless where erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence
- concluding letter written by murder victim could not be considered a memory or belief under state of mind exception because it was not related to the victim's will
- explaining exceptions to hearsay rule include “dying declaration,” “excited utterance,” “present sense impression,” “state of mind,” and “complete story” doctrine
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
MUSMANNO, J.:
¶ 1 The majority presents an excellent, well-reasoned and cogent analysis of the rule against hearsay, as applied to the letter written by the decedent, Mr. Sandt. I wholeheartedly agree with my esteemed colleague that Mr. Sandt’s letter constituted inadmissible hearsay and no exception applied. However, I am constrained to conclude that the improper admission of the letter at trial was not harmless error, beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶ 2 An error will be deemed harmless where the appellate court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the error could not have contributed to the verdict. Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 585 Pa. 547 , 889 A.2d 501, 528 (2005). “If there is a reasonable possibility that the error may have contributed to the verdict, it is not harmless.” Id.; see Commonwealth v. Story, 476 Pa. 391 , 383 A.2d 155, 164-66 (1978) (stating that the factors to be considered in weighing harmlessness of error include (1) whether error was prejudicial, and if so, whether it was de minimus; (2) whether erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence that was substantially similar to erroneously admitted evidence; and (3) whether evidence of guilt was so overwhelming, as established by properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence, that prejudicial effect of error was insignificant).
¶ 3 At trial, the Commonwealth presented strong evidence of Appellant’s involvement in Mr. Sandt’s death. However, the prejudicial impact of Mr. Sandt’s letter was, in my view, insurmountable. The letter was so damning that there clearly is a reasonable possibility that its improper *33 admission contributed to the verdict. On this basis, I would conclude that the error was not harmless, and accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial.