Commonwealth v. Bonaduce

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Bonaduce

307 A.2d 326, 224 Pa. Super. 337, 1973 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1907

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 14, 1973

DocketAppeal, No. 1390

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 307 A.2d 326 (Commonwealth v. Bonaduce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Bonaduce, 307 A.2d 326, 224 Pa. Super. 337, 1973 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1907 (Pa. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Appellant contends that after-discovered evidence should entitle him to a new trial. In the briefs of the parties, reference is made to an affidavit setting forth: (1) the reason the offered evidence was not available at time of trial; and (2) the nature of the evidence and its materiality to appellant’s defense.

We have searched the record and find no affidavit. Under the circumstances, we are unable to mate a determination of the matter on the bare allegations of counsel. From the state of the record, we cannot decide if the criteria for the grant of a new trial because of after-discovered evidence, as set forth in Commonwealth v. Phillips, 183 Pa. Superior Ct. 377, 132 A. 2d 733 (1957), have been satisfied.

We remand this case to the lower court to obtain a complete record for purposes of appeal.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Appellant contends that after-discovered evidence should entitle him to a new trial. In the briefs of the parties, reference is made to an affidavit setting forth: (1) the reason the offered evidence was not available at time of trial; and (2) the nature of the evidence and its materiality to appellant’s defense.

We have searched the record and find no affidavit. Under the circumstances, we are unable to mate a determination of the matter on the bare allegations of counsel. From the state of the record, we cannot decide if the criteria for the grant of a new trial because of after-discovered evidence, as set forth in Commonwealth v. Phillips, 183 Pa. Superior Ct. 377, 132 A. 2d 733 (1957), have been satisfied.

We remand this case to the lower court to obtain a complete record for purposes of appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.2d 326, 224 Pa. Super. 337, 1973 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-bonaduce-pasuperct-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack