With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that an objection on hearsay grounds did not preserve for appeal an exception to the hearsay rule that was not specifically raised
B: holding that violation of rule 16 in that case was not harmless error
C: holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless
D: holding that admission of hearsay was harmless where strong circumstantial evidence established the same facts
C.