Commonwealth v. Presbury

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Presbury

379 A.2d 569, 475 Pa. 48, 1977 Pa. LEXIS 860

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 28, 1977

Docket272

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 379 A.2d 569 (Commonwealth v. Presbury) 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. Presbury, 379 A.2d 569, 475 Pa. 48, 1977 Pa. LEXIS 860 (Pa. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Alan Presbury, was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. Post-verdict motions were denied and this appeal followed.

*49 Appellant contends (1) that the prosecutor made remarks in his opening statement which were not substantiated by the evidence, (2) that the prosecutor made prejudicial remarks in his closing address to the jury, and (3) that the prosecutor unnecessarily cross-examined the appellant concerning prior inconsistent statements. These issues were not raised in the trial court and have therefore not been preserved for appellate review. Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974); Rule 1119 Pa.R.Cr.P.

Appellant also contends that the prosecutor improperly was permitted to cross-examine an alibi witness about that witness’ refusal to be interviewed by the prosecutor. We have examined this issue and find it to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

JONES, Former C. J., and NIX, 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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Alan Presbury, was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. Post-verdict motions were denied and this appeal followed.

*49 Appellant contends (1) that the prosecutor made remarks in his opening statement which were not substantiated by the evidence, (2) that the prosecutor made prejudicial remarks in his closing address to the jury, and (3) that the prosecutor unnecessarily cross-examined the appellant concerning prior inconsistent statements. These issues were not raised in the trial court and have therefore not been preserved for appellate review. Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974); Rule 1119 Pa.R.Cr.P.

Appellant also contends that the prosecutor improperly was permitted to cross-examine an alibi witness about that witness’ refusal to be interviewed by the prosecutor. We have examined this issue and find it to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

JONES, Former C. J., and NIX, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

379 A.2d 569, 475 Pa. 48, 1977 Pa. LEXIS 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-presbury-pa-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack