Commonwealth v. Jerry

401 A.2d 310, 485 Pa. 95, 1979 Pa. LEXIS 550
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 1, 1979
Docket48 and 52
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 401 A.2d 310 (Commonwealth v. Jerry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme 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. Jerry, 401 A.2d 310, 485 Pa. 95, 1979 Pa. LEXIS 550 (Pa. 1979).

Opinions

OPINION

LARSEN, Justice.

In a joint trial, appellant Bernard C. Jerry was convicted of murder of the first degree and appellant Gary Robinson was convicted of murder of the second degree. Additionally, the appellants were convicted of robbery, conspiracy, and various other offenses. Post-verdict motions were denied and the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment. In this appeal, the appellants (individually or in conjunction) raise the following contentions, all of which are without merit.

1. That the evidence is insufficient to sustain appellant Jerry’s conviction of murder of the first degree1 and robbery.

2. That the lower court erred in determining that appellant Jerry had waived his right to object to certain inadmissible evidence.

3. That the lower court erred when, during the trial, it discharged a principal juror and replaced said juror with an alternate juror.

4. That the lower court erred in permitting in-court identifications of the appellants (Jerry and Robinson) by four Commonwealth witnesses.

5. That the lower court erred in refusing the appellants’ (Jerry and Robinson) motion for a mistrial after a Commonwealth witness revealed that he had received a threat.

6. That the trial court erred by ruling it would allow the introduction of a portion of the appellants’ (Jerry and Robinson) criminal records if the appellants elected to testify.

Finally, in a pro se brief appellant Jerry contends that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to raise a timely [98]*98objection to certain inadmissible evidence. We are unable to consider this contention because appellant Jerry’s appellate counsel is the same attorney who represented him at the trial. We will, therefore, remand to the lower court for appointment of new appellate counsel and any hearing deemed necessary by that court.

Judgments of sentence as to Gary James Robinson are affirmed. We withhold final disposition on the judgments of sentence as to Bernard C. Jerry pending the remand on the ineffective assistance of counsel issue.

NIX, J., concurs in the result. MANDERINO, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which ROBERTS, J., joins.

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

Related

ROBINSON v. BROTHERS
W.D. Pennsylvania, 2025
Com. v. Jerry, B.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2020
Com. v. Robinson, G.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
Bruckshaw v. Frankford Hospital of the Philadelphia
58 A.3d 102 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)
Colosimo v. Pennsylvania Electric Co.
518 A.2d 1206 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1986)
Bolton v. Holy Spirit Hospital
40 Pa. D. & C.3d 372 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1984)
Commonwealth v. Graves
463 A.2d 467 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)
Habecker v. Nationwide Insurance
445 A.2d 1222 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
Commonwealth v. Robinson
421 A.2d 1066 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
Commonwealth v. Jerry
401 A.2d 310 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
401 A.2d 310, 485 Pa. 95, 1979 Pa. LEXIS 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-jerry-pa-1979.