Commonwealth v. Mundell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Mundell

387 A.2d 659, 478 Pa. 616, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 671

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 2, 1978

DocketNo. 568

StatusPublished

This text of 387 A.2d 659 (Commonwealth v. Mundell) 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. Mundell, 387 A.2d 659, 478 Pa. 616, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 671 (Pa. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, after waiving a jury trial, was tried in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, and was found guilty of murder in the third degree and possession of an instrument of crime. Post-verdict motions were heard and denied and appellant was sentenced. In appealing the trial court’s judgment of murder in the third degree, appellant seeks a new trial.

Appellant raises two issues in this appeal: 1) that the trial court erred in not disregarding the testimony of two of the Commonwealth’s witnesses who, appellant claims, were incapable of accurately observing the crime in question; and 2) that the trial court erred in not requiring the Commonwealth to introduce appellant’s confession at trial. Appellant’s first contention is without merit and appellant’s [618]*618second contention has been waived because the issue was not raised at trial.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, after waiving a jury trial, was tried in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, and was found guilty of murder in the third degree and possession of an instrument of crime. Post-verdict motions were heard and denied and appellant was sentenced. In appealing the trial court’s judgment of murder in the third degree, appellant seeks a new trial.

Appellant raises two issues in this appeal: 1) that the trial court erred in not disregarding the testimony of two of the Commonwealth’s witnesses who, appellant claims, were incapable of accurately observing the crime in question; and 2) that the trial court erred in not requiring the Commonwealth to introduce appellant’s confession at trial. Appellant’s first contention is without merit and appellant’s [618]*618second contention has been waived because the issue was not raised at trial.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 A.2d 659, 478 Pa. 616, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-mundell-pa-1978.