stating that state of mind evidence is relevant where an issue of self- 5 This version of the Rule took effect on March 18, 2013. “The rule changes result in no substantive change and are intended to conform the Pennsylvania rules, which reference the federal rules of evidence, with the stylistic changes made to the federal rules[.]” Schmalz v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., 67 A.3d 800 , 804 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2013). -6- J-A20044-14 defense, suicide or accidental death is raised by the defendant
How later courts described this case
- stating that state of mind evidence is relevant where an issue of self- 5 This version of the Rule took effect on March 18, 2013. “The rule changes result in no substantive change and are intended to conform the Pennsylvania rules, which reference the federal rules of evidence, with the stylistic changes made to the federal rules[.]” Schmalz v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., 67 A.3d 800 , 804 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2013). -6- J-A20044-14 defense, suicide or accidental death is raised by the defendant
- holding that even though the Commonwealth did not raise the argument, the admission of hearsay testimony was harmless error because the appellate courts may affirm “a valid judgment based on any reason appearing as of record, regardless of whether it is raised by the - 15 - J-S26021-22 appellee”
- explaining that “[a]n error may be deemed harmless, inter alia, where the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.”
- holding that it is a well-settled doctrine in this Commonwealth that a trial court can be affirmed on any valid basis appearing of record
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice BALDWIN
concurring.
I join the majority opinion in full. I write separately, however, to reiterate the position that I detailed in Commonwealth v. Carson, 590 Pa. 501, 615 , 913 A.2d 220, 287 (2006) (Baldwin, J. concurring), that an instruction pursuant to Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 , 114 S.Ct. 2187 , 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994) (plurality) should be given in every capital case. However, as this is not the prevailing view, I am compelled to agree with the majority that the Simmons issue was waived.
Justice FITZGERALD joins this concurring opinion.