Commonwealth v. Fugarino

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Fugarino

429 A.2d 109, 288 Pa. Super. 593

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided August 8, 1980·No. No. 1727·Published

Opinion

We vacate the judgment of sentence and remand this case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the witness Inverso’s identification testimony was the fruit of a violation of appellant’s constitutional rights. If such a violation is found to have occurred, appellant must be granted a new trial. If such violation is found not to have occurred, judgment of sentence shall be reinstated. Appellant and the Commonwealth may appeal from the decision of the eviden-tiary court. Cf. Commonwealth v. Polsky, 485 Pa. 360, 402 A.2d 1003 (1979).

WICKERSHAM, J., filed a memorandum dissenting statement.

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

We vacate the judgment of sentence and remand this case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the witness Inverso’s identification testimony was the fruit of a violation of appellant’s constitutional rights. If such a violation is found to have occurred, appellant must be granted a new trial. If such violation is found not to have occurred, judgment of sentence shall be reinstated. Appellant and the Commonwealth may appeal from the decision of the eviden-tiary court. Cf. Commonwealth v. Polsky, 485 Pa. 360, 402 A.2d 1003 (1979).

WICKERSHAM, J., filed a memorandum dissenting statement.

Commonwealth v. Fugarino, 429 A.2d 109, 288 Pa. Super. 593 (Pa. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

429 A.2d 109 (Commonwealth v. Fugarino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related