Commonwealth v. Phoenix

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Phoenix

268 A.2d 460, 217 Pa. Super. 121, 1970 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1247

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedAugust 6, 1970

DocketAppeal, 176

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 268 A.2d 460 (Commonwealth v. Phoenix) 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. Phoenix, 268 A.2d 460, 217 Pa. Super. 121, 1970 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1247 (Pa. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Appellant was tried and convicted of aggravated robbery. At his trial, he attempted to offer alibi testimony by his wife. Because he had not complied with the notice provisions of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 312, his offer was excluded. He does not come within the “interest of justice” exception to Rule 312. Cf. Commonwealth v. Shider, 209 Pa. Superior Ct. 133, 224 A. 2d 802 (1966). Moreover, his contention that the Rule is unconstitutional is without foundation in the instant case. Commonwealth v. Vecchiolli, 208 Pa. Superior Ct. 483, 224 A. 2d 96 (1966). Cf. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S. Ct. 1893 (1970).

Judgment of sentence affirmed, and the defendant is directed to appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called, and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence, or any part thereof which has not been performed at the time the appeal was made a supersedeas.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Appellant was tried and convicted of aggravated robbery. At his trial, he attempted to offer alibi testimony by his wife. Because he had not complied with the notice provisions of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 312, his offer was excluded. He does not come within the “interest of justice” exception to Rule 312. Cf. Commonwealth v. Shider, 209 Pa. Superior Ct. 133, 224 A. 2d 802 (1966). Moreover, his contention that the Rule is unconstitutional is without foundation in the instant case. Commonwealth v. Vecchiolli, 208 Pa. Superior Ct. 483, 224 A. 2d 96 (1966). Cf. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S. Ct. 1893 (1970).

Judgment of sentence affirmed, and the defendant is directed to appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called, and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence, or any part thereof which has not been performed at the time the appeal was made a supersedeas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.2d 460, 217 Pa. Super. 121, 1970 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-phoenix-pasuperct-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack