Commonwealth v. Estepp

33 A.3d 1261, 613 Pa. 369, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 3117
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 28, 2011·No. 384 EAL 2011·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day of December 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

1. Should this case be remanded to the lower court for hearings regarding police misconduct?
*370 2. Should the Petitioner be granted a new trial because of the admission of hearsay evidence from a non-testifying “informant” through the testimony of suspended officer Jeffrey Cujdik?

The parties are directed to frame any arguments concerning after-discovered evidence under the four-pronged standard of Commonwealth v. Dennis, 552 Pa. 331, 715 A.2d 404, 415 (1998).

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

Commonwealth v. Estepp, 33 A.3d 1261, 613 Pa. 369, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 3117 (Pa. 2011).

33 A.3d 1261 (Commonwealth v. Estepp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Dennis
715 A.2d 404 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1998)