Commonwealth v. Detwiler

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Detwiler

323 A.2d 48, 229 Pa. Super. 33, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2143

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 21, 1974

DocketAppeal, No. 403

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 323 A.2d 48 (Commonwealth v. Detwiler) 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. Detwiler, 323 A.2d 48, 229 Pa. Super. 33, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2143 (Pa. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Jacobs, J.,

The appellant herein was convicted of assault with intent to hill, but contends that at trial he produced evidence of intoxication sufficient to negate mens rea. However, no record was made of the trial and no attempt has been made to provide this Court with an equivalent picture of what transpired at trial. Under such circumstances we cannot give meaningful appellate review of the question raised.

At the inception of the trial, appellant’s counsel waived the recording of testimony and at sentencing the same counsel waived the right to file post-trial motions. The effectiveness of such waivers should be determined in a proceeding under the Post Conviction Hearing Act.¹

Judgment affirmed without prejudice to the right of appellant to proceed with his remedies under the Post Conviction Hearing Act in the court below.

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

Opinion by

Jacobs, J.,

The appellant herein was convicted of assault with intent to hill, but contends that at trial he produced evidence of intoxication sufficient to negate mens rea. However, no record was made of the trial and no attempt has been made to provide this Court with an equivalent picture of what transpired at trial. Under such circumstances we cannot give meaningful appellate review of the question raised.

At the inception of the trial, appellant’s counsel waived the recording of testimony and at sentencing the same counsel waived the right to file post-trial motions. The effectiveness of such waivers should be determined in a proceeding under the Post Conviction Hearing Act.¹

Judgment affirmed without prejudice to the right of appellant to proceed with his remedies under the Post Conviction Hearing Act in the court below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 A.2d 48, 229 Pa. Super. 33, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-detwiler-pasuperct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack