Commonwealth v. Cole

391 A.2d 1315, 481 Pa. 60, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 1022
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 5, 1978·No. No. 45·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from appellant’s conviction, by a jury, on two counts of third degree murder.* Appellant has raised the following contentions:

(1) The trial court erred in excluding certain testimony of witnesses for appellant;
[62] (2) The trial court erred in limiting appellant’s testimony;
(3) The trial court erred in granting the Commonwealth’s motion to strike the testimony of a pharmacologist who testified on behalf of appellant;
(4) The element of “serious provocation,” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2503(a) (1973), renders the voluntary manslaughter statute unconstitutionally vague;
(5) The trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to elicit from appellant testimony concerning prior misconduct;
(6) The trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth on rebuttal to present other evidence of appellant’s prior misconduct;
(7) The trial court erred in refusing to give certain of appellant’s requested points for charge on voluntary manslaughter;
(8) The trial court erred in admitting into evidence two photographs of the crime scene.

As to the substance of appellant’s sixth assignment of error, although waived, Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974), we find it also to be without merit. We have also considered appellant’s other arguments and conclude that they, too, are without merit.

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

Footnotes

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

Commonwealth v. Cole, 391 A.2d 1315, 481 Pa. 60, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 1022 (Pa. 1978).

391 A.2d 1315 (Commonwealth v. Cole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Calhoun
460 N.E.2d 294 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1983)