Commonwealth v. Moore
971 A.2d 489, 601 Pa. 90, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 690
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Commonwealth v. Moore. Read the opinion of the Court — 594 Pa. 619 →
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of April, 2009, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:
(1) Do Commonwealth ex rel. Milewski v. Ashe, 363 Pa. 596, 70 A.2d 625 (1950) and Pa.R.Crim.P. 602(A) require that, after a bench trial, a defendant who is in custody be physically present in the courtroom when the verdict is rendered, or is attendance by videoconference sufficient?
(2) Did Petitioner sufficiently preserve his objection to his physical absence from the courtroom when the verdict was rendered in this matter?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Commonwealth v. Moore, 971 A.2d 489, 601 Pa. 90, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 690 (Pa. 2009).
971 A.2d 489 (Commonwealth v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Milewski v. Ashe
70 A.2d 625 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1950)