Commonwealth v. McAnulty

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. McAnulty

397 A.2d 1227, 263 Pa. Super. 318, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1845

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 15, 1979

DocketNo. 297

StatusPublished

This text of 397 A.2d 1227 (Commonwealth v. McAnulty) 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. McAnulty, 397 A.2d 1227, 263 Pa. Super. 318, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1845 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant contends that the court below erred in denying a defense request for a continuance when the prosecution called a witness who was not named in the Commonwealth’s answer to the appellant’s Bill of Particulars filed under former Rule of Criminal Procedure 221. The short answer to this is that under the Rules then in effect,¹ the defense had no right to discover the names of the witnesses the Commonwealth intended to call. Former R.Crim.P. 310; Commonwealth v. Bederka, 459 Pa. 653, 659, 331 A.2d 181, 183 (1975); Commonwealth v. Jones, 245 Pa.Super. 487, 493, 369 A.2d 733, 736 (1977). Therefore, appellant was not prejudiced. Although the Commonwealth in its answer unnecessarily volunteered the names of other witnesses it intended to call, Commonwealth v. Bartman, 240 Pa.Super. 495, 367 A.2d 1121 (1976), is not applicable as there the Commonwealth volunteered an affirmatively misrepresentative answer, which is not the case here.

Appellant also contends that the court erred in refusing to declare a mistrial when, after the jury was empanelled and sworn, it was discovered that the parents of the victim were present in the courtroom during the jury selection process. However, appellant made no showing that any of the jurors chosen had actually spoken to the parents. Before taking any evidence, the court polled the jurors on this question and determined that none of them had spoken to anybody about the case. Therefore, this contention is without merit.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

HOFFMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant contends that the court below erred in denying a defense request for a continuance when the prosecution called a witness who was not named in the Commonwealth’s answer to the appellant’s Bill of Particulars filed under former Rule of Criminal Procedure 221. The short answer to this is that under the Rules then in effect,¹ the defense had no right to discover the names of the witnesses the Commonwealth intended to call. Former R.Crim.P. 310; Commonwealth v. Bederka, 459 Pa. 653, 659, 331 A.2d 181, 183 (1975); Commonwealth v. Jones, 245 Pa.Super. 487, 493, 369 A.2d 733, 736 (1977). Therefore, appellant was not prejudiced. Although the Commonwealth in its answer unnecessarily volunteered the names of other witnesses it intended to call, Commonwealth v. Bartman, 240 Pa.Super. 495, 367 A.2d 1121 (1976), is not applicable as there the Commonwealth volunteered an affirmatively misrepresentative answer, which is not the case here.

Appellant also contends that the court erred in refusing to declare a mistrial when, after the jury was empanelled and sworn, it was discovered that the parents of the victim were present in the courtroom during the jury selection process. However, appellant made no showing that any of the jurors chosen had actually spoken to the parents. Before taking any evidence, the court polled the jurors on this question and determined that none of them had spoken to anybody about the case. Therefore, this contention is without merit.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

HOFFMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 A.2d 1227, 263 Pa. Super. 318, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-mcanulty-pasuperct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack