test for harmless error in Pennsylvania

2021(Footnote Continued Next Page) - 17 - J-S07005-21 Our Supreme Court clearly delineated this distinction in Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (“Spotz II”): [T]he test for prejudice in the ineffectiveness context is more exacting than the test for harmless error, and the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the Commonwealth.

2020In sum, Appellant’s discussion inappropriately conflates “harmless error” with the more-exacting “actual prejudice” standard that is applicable under the PCRA.9/10 Our Supreme Court clearly delineated this distinction in Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (“Spotz II”): [T]he test for prejudice in the ineffectiveness context is more exacting than the test for harmless error, and the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the Commonwealth.

2023Restated, we have concluded that because of its nature, an impermissible reference to the accused’s post-arrest silence is innately prejudicial” and specifically declin[ed] to conduct a harmless error or prejudice analysis because “there is no question that the impermissible reference to a criminal defendant’s post-arrest silence is prejudicial”), with Spotz, 870 A.2d at 834 (“[T]he test for prejudice in the ineffectiveness context is more exacting than the test for harmless error.”), and Whitney, 708 A.2d at 478 (“Even an explicit reference to silence is not reversible error where it occurs i

2014However, as this Court suggested in Spotz I, “the test for prejudice in the ineffectiveness context is more exacting than the test for harmless error, and the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the Commonwealth.” Spotz I, 582 Pa. at 227 , 870 A.2d at 834 (citations omitted).

2018We arrived at this 19 The Superior Court erroneously set forth the test for harmless error applicable to criminal matters See supra, p. 12; see also Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d 155 , 162- 68 (Pa. 1978) (establishing the standard of proof and bases for determining whether a non-constitutional error in a criminal prosecution is harmless).

2018See supra, p. 1165; see also Commonwealth v. Story, 476 Pa. 391 , 383 A.2d 155 , 162-68 (1978) (establishing the standard of proof and bases for determining whether a non-constitutional error in a criminal prosecution is harmless).

2023Restated, we have concluded that because of its nature, an impermissible reference to the accused’s post-arrest silence is innately prejudicial” and specifically declin[ed] to conduct a harmless error or prejudice analysis because “there is no question that the impermissible reference to a criminal defendant’s post-arrest silence is prejudicial”), with Spotz, 870 A.2d at 834 (“[T]he test for prejudice in the ineffectiveness context is more exacting than the test for harmless error.”), and Whitney, 708 A.2d at 478 (“Even an explicit reference to silence is not reversible error where it occurs i

2018VVe note, however, that to the extent the criminal standard for harmlessness could have applied to this case, the Superior Court also improperly placed the burden on i\/iother to prove that she was harmed by the erroneous admission of the exhibits See Commonwealth v. Fulton, 179 A.3d 475, 493 (Pa. 2018) (stating that the proponent of the evidence has the burden of proving that the erroneous admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).

2016When a defendant challenges a conviction, the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt. -5- J-S06026-16 Hinton v. Alabama, 134 S. Ct. 1081, 1089 (2014) (per curiam). “[T]he test for prejudice in the ineffectiveness context is more exacting than the test for harmless error, and the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the Commonwealth.” Spotz, supra at 315 . “[T]he Pierce prejudice standard [] requires the defendant to show that counsel’s conduct had an actual adverse effect on the outcom

2015See Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973 (1986); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Commonwealth v. Spotz, 624 Pa. 4 , 84 A.3d 294, 315 (2014) (“[T]he test for prejudice in the ineffectiveness context is more exacting than the test for harmless error, and the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the Commonwealth.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2015See Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973 (1986); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Commonwealth v. Spotz, 624 Pa. 4 , 84 A.3d 294, 315 (2014) (“[T]he test for prejudice in the ineffectiveness context is more exacting than the test for harmless error, and the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the Commonwealth.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2015See Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153 , 527 A.2d 973 (1986); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Commonwealth v. Spotz, 624 Pa. 4 , 84 A.3d 294, 315 (2014) (“[T]he test for prejudice in the ineffectiveness context is more exacting than the test for harmless error, and the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the Commonwealth.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2005See Gribble, 863 A.2d at 472 (citing Commonwealth v. Howard, 538 Pa. 86 , 645 A.2d 1300, 1307 (1994)).

2005See Gribble, 863 A.2d at 472 (citing Commonwealth v. Howard, 538 Pa. 86 , 645 A.2d 1300, 1307 (1994)).

2005See Gribble, 863 A.2d at 472 (citing Commonwealth v. Howard, 538 Pa. 86 , 645 A.2d 1300, 1307 (1994)).