Commonwealth v. MATCHESON

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. MATCHESON

259 A.2d 174, 215 Pa. Super. 371, 1969 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1127

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 12, 1969

DocketAppeals, 485 and 550

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 259 A.2d 174 (Commonwealth v. MATCHESON) 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.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. MATCHESON, 259 A.2d 174, 215 Pa. Super. 371, 1969 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1127 (Pa. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinions

Opinion by

Montgomery, J.,

These two appeals were tried and argued together and will be disposed of in this opinion. Both cases raise the same issue. That issue is whether the trial judge erred in denying defendants’ motions for a mistrial, based upon the possession by the jurors of copies of the criminal list containing a listing of two additional indictments against one of the defendants, Matcheson.

Following the return of a verdict of guilty by the jury, both defendants submitted themselves for sentence without filing any post-trial motions and sentences were imposed from which these appeals were taken. The verdict was rendered on October 3, 1968, and the sentences were imposed on February 7, 1969. Both appellants were represented by counsel at all times.

The well-established doctrine followed by our appellate courts is that, generally, they need not entertain arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Commonwealth v. Williams, 432 Pa. 557, 248 A. 2d 301 (1968); Commonwealth v. Ludlow, 206 Pa. Superior Ct. 464, 214 A. 2d 282 (1965). Thus, where no post-conviction motions have been filed, the general rule applies, and no appeal lies to this Court. Commonwealth v. Mays, 182 Pa. Superior Ct. 130, 126 A. 2d 530 (1956).

Occasionally our appellate courts have relaxed this rule. See Commonwealth v. Williams, supra; Com[373]*373monwealth v. Dessus, 423 Pa. 177, 224 A. 2d 188 (1966); Commonwealth v. Price, 208 Pa. Superior Ct. 354, 222 A. 2d 610 (1966); Commonwealth v. Dulacy, 204 Pa. Superior Ct. 163, 203 A. 2d 587 (1964); Commonwealth v. Gary, 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 111, 163 A. 2d 696 (1960). However, we do not consider the present case as falling within the exceptions set forth in the above and other similar cases.

The withdrawal of a juror¹ and the declaration of a mistrial was within the discretion of the trial judge. Commonwealth v. Smith, 432 Pa. 517, 248 A. 2d 24 (1968).

Appeals dismissed.

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

Opinion by

Montgomery, J.,

These two appeals were tried and argued together and will be disposed of in this opinion. Both cases raise the same issue. That issue is whether the trial judge erred in denying defendants’ motions for a mistrial, based upon the possession by the jurors of copies of the criminal list containing a listing of two additional indictments against one of the defendants, Matcheson.

Following the return of a verdict of guilty by the jury, both defendants submitted themselves for sentence without filing any post-trial motions and sentences were imposed from which these appeals were taken. The verdict was rendered on October 3, 1968, and the sentences were imposed on February 7, 1969. Both appellants were represented by counsel at all times.

The well-established doctrine followed by our appellate courts is that, generally, they need not entertain arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Commonwealth v. Williams, 432 Pa. 557, 248 A. 2d 301 (1968); Commonwealth v. Ludlow, 206 Pa. Superior Ct. 464, 214 A. 2d 282 (1965). Thus, where no post-conviction motions have been filed, the general rule applies, and no appeal lies to this Court. Commonwealth v. Mays, 182 Pa. Superior Ct. 130, 126 A. 2d 530 (1956).

Occasionally our appellate courts have relaxed this rule. See Commonwealth v. Williams, supra; Com[373]*373monwealth v. Dessus, 423 Pa. 177, 224 A. 2d 188 (1966); Commonwealth v. Price, 208 Pa. Superior Ct. 354, 222 A. 2d 610 (1966); Commonwealth v. Dulacy, 204 Pa. Superior Ct. 163, 203 A. 2d 587 (1964); Commonwealth v. Gary, 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 111, 163 A. 2d 696 (1960). However, we do not consider the present case as falling within the exceptions set forth in the above and other similar cases.

The withdrawal of a juror¹ and the declaration of a mistrial was within the discretion of the trial judge. Commonwealth v. Smith, 432 Pa. 517, 248 A. 2d 24 (1968).

Appeals dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.2d 174, 215 Pa. Super. 371, 1969 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-matcheson-pasuperct-1969.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack