Commonwealth v. Allen

988 A.2d 668, 605 Pa. 220, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 247
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Commonwealth v. Allen. Read the opinion of the Court — 601 Pa. 570
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 23, 2010·No. 219 EAL 2009·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMAND *221 ED to the Superior Court for consideration of whether the trial court improperly permitted newly-discovered evidence regarding the alleged contents of a telephone conversation between Petitioner and his wife to be introduced at trial over Petitioner’s objection, as the Superior Court erroneously found the issue to be waived because Petitioner did not also additionally request a mistrial. See Commonwealth v. Maloney, 469 Pa. 342, 365 A.2d 1237, 1242 (1976) (holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection, and it was overruled by the trial court, a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent, and the trial court’s denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commonwealth v. Allen, 988 A.2d 668, 605 Pa. 220, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 247 (Pa. 2010).

988 A.2d 668 (Commonwealth v. Allen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Maloney
365 A.2d 1237 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1976)