Commonwealth v. Fugarino
This text of 429 A.2d 109 (Commonwealth v. Fugarino) 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.
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).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
429 A.2d 109, 288 Pa. Super. 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-fugarino-pasuperct-1980.