Commonwealth v. Hamer

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Hamer

24 A.3d 359, 611 Pa. 269, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 1757

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided August 3, 2011·No. Appeal, 584 WAL 2010·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

[270]*270 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and this case REMANDED to that court for consideration of the other issues raised by petitioner before the Superior Court. Although the best evidence was available, the trial court followed proper procedure pursuant to Pa.R.E. 1002 by not allowing the introduction of the videotape, due to its containing material prohibited by Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). Jurisdiction relinquished.

Justice SAYLOR files a Dissenting Statement.

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

[270]*270 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and this case REMANDED to that court for consideration of the other issues raised by petitioner before the Superior Court. Although the best evidence was available, the trial court followed proper procedure pursuant to Pa.R.E. 1002 by not allowing the introduction of the videotape, due to its containing material prohibited by Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). Jurisdiction relinquished.

Justice SAYLOR files a Dissenting Statement.

Commonwealth v. Hamer, 24 A.3d 359, 611 Pa. 269, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 1757 (Pa. 2011).

Pincite

24 A.3d 359 (Commonwealth v. Hamer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related