Commonwealth v. Petroll (Dissenting Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-116-1998] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellee : : : v. : : : FREDERICK W. PETROLL, : : Appellant : : : : : No. 179 M.D. Appeal Docket 1997 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court dated June 18, 1997, at No. 2429 Philadelphia 1996, affirming the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Criminal Division, dated June 28, 1996, at No. 2616-1995 696 A.2d 817 (Pa. Super. 1997) ARGUED: April 30, 1998 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE ZAPPALA DECIDED: JULY 22, 1999 Harmless error can only be found where the appellate court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that 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 guilty verdict. Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 701 A.2d 492, 507 (Pa. 1997) (emphasis added). The majority misapplies this analysis. The majority concedes that the Appellant rebutted the Commonwealth s evidence, slip opinion at 19, but fails to explain how its conclusion that the jury would have found the Appellant guilty even without the improperly admitted evidence is drawn from the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt. The Commonwealth made extensive use of the logbook and the contents of the bags, along with expert testimony interpreting the information contained therein. In closing, the prosecutor argued at length that the jury should infer from this evidence that the Appellant was fatigued from failing to rest for the required periods between trips. Based on my examination of the record, I cannot agree with the majority s conclusion that the error in admitting the improperly seized bags and logbook was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial. [J-116-1998] - 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
