Justice SAYLOR, dissenting. I agree with Mr. Justice Baer’s conclusion that the trial court violated Rule of Criminal Procedure 631. See Concurring Opinion, at 130-31,104 A.3d at 1175. That being the case, and as Appellant preserved this meritorious claim of trial court error, the appropriate inquiry implicates a harmless error analysis, for which the Commonwealth is obligated to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to the verdict. See Commonwealth v. Howard, 538 Pa. 86, 100, 645 A.2d 1300, 1307 (1994); see also Commonwealth v. Strong, 575 Pa. 433, 437, 836 A.2d 884, 887 (2003) (applying a harmless error analysis to a violation of a rule of criminal procedure and collecting cases); Commonwealth v. Morris, 522 Pa. 533, 541, 564 A.2d 1226, 1230 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, I do not agree with the
holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless holding that an objection on hearsay grounds did not preserve for appeal an exception to the hearsay rule that was not specifically raised holding that violation of rule 16 in that case was not harmless error holding that admission of hearsay was harmless where strong circumstantial evidence established the same facts holding violation of right to testify could not be harmless