Commonwealth v. Castro

65 A.3d 291, 619 Pa. 466, 2013 WL 1435234, 2013 Pa. LEXIS 652

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 9, 2013·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 9th day of April, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as phrased by petitioner, is:

Is it possible to meet the test for after-discovered evidence where the defendant proffers no evidence, but instead relies on a newspaper article?

Petitioner’s Petition for Leave to File Reply to Brief in Opposition to Commonwealth’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 9th day of April, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as phrased by petitioner, is:

Is it possible to meet the test for after-discovered evidence where the defendant proffers no evidence, but instead relies on a newspaper article?

Petitioner’s Petition for Leave to File Reply to Brief in Opposition to Commonwealth’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.

Commonwealth v. Castro, 65 A.3d 291, 619 Pa. 466, 2013 WL 1435234, 2013 Pa. LEXIS 652 (Pa. 2013).

Pincite

65 A.3d 291 (Commonwealth v. Castro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.