Com. v. McCracken
| Decision Date | 26 March 1990 |
| Citation | 572 A.2d 2,524 Pa. 332 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Terrence McCRACKEN, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Appeal No. 51 E.D. Appeal Dkt.1989 from Order of Superior Court, 373 Pa.Super. 90, 540 A.2d 537 (1988), entered March 1, 1988, at Nos. 318 and 777 Philadelphia 1987, Reversing Order of Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Criminal Division, entered January 16, 1987, at Nos. 1584 and 2369 of 1983.
John G. McDougall, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Dennis McAndrews, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.
Order affirmed.
Evidence of an admission by an alleged co-conspirator of his commission of the specific crime for which a defendant is charged is not merely cumulative of a general defense theory implicating the co-conspirator in other similar crimes. See Commonwealth v. Tervalon, 463 Pa. 581, 345 A.2d 671 (1975). The after-discovered evidence here would be likely to change the result of this case in light of the conflicting evidence presented at trial. I, therefore, dissent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Brown
... ... See Commonwealth v. McCracken, 373 Pa.Super. 90, 540 A.2d 537, 53839 (1988), aff'd per curiam, 524 Pa. 332, 572 A.2d 2 (1990) (under Anderson and Colon, we first must ... ...
-
Com. v. Weis
... ... Commonwealth v. Nocero, 399 Pa.Super. 346, 355-356, 582 A.2d 376, 380 (1990), allocatur denied, 527 Pa. 643, 593 A.2d 416 (1991), quoting Commonwealth v. Hunter, 381 Pa.Super. 606, 618, 554 A.2d 550, 555 (1989). See also Commonwealth v. McCracken, 373 Pa.Super. 90, 100, 540 A.2d 537, 541-542 (1988), affirmed per curiam, 524 Pa. 332, 572 A.2d 2 (1990) (same). Moreover, "absent a clear abuse of discretion, the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial on the basis of after-discovered evidence will not be disturbed on appeal." Commonwealth ... ...
-
Com. v. Laudenberger
... ... Even if the statement satisfies the exception to the hearsay bar, it must also be shown to be relevant before admission is proper. See Commonwealth v. McCracken, 373 Pa.Super. 90, 540 A.2d 537 (1988) (a statement against penal interest must inculpate declarant and must be relevant to defendant's case to be admissible), aff'd per curiam without comment, 524 Pa. 332, 572 A.2d 2 (1990) (Nix, C.J., dissenting). "Evidence is considered relevant if it logically ... ...
-
Com. v. Goldman
... ... Pennsylvania has no precise definition of "unavailable." However, our courts have found unavailability where a witness is deceased, Rudisill v. Cordes, 333 Pa. 544, 5 A.2d 217 (1939), invokes the fifth amendment privilege not to testify, Commonwealth v. McCracken, 373 Pa.Super. 90, 540 A.2d 537 (1988), aff'd, 524 Pa. 332, 572 A.2d 2 (1990), or cannot be found, Movie Distributors Liquidating Trust, 407 Pa.Super. at 593, 595 A.2d at 1305. Here, the Commonwealth has failed to establish that Pam Goldman was unavailable ... To support its ... ...