Commonwealth v. Roach

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Roach

383 A.2d 1257, 477 Pa. 379, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 902

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 23, 1978

Docket79

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 383 A.2d 1257 (Commonwealth v. Roach) 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. Roach, 383 A.2d 1257, 477 Pa. 379, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 902 (Pa. 1978).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Alfred Roach, appellant, was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree¹ and possessing an instrument of crime,² in connection with the shooting death of Maurice Dozier in Philadelphia on July 7, 1974. Post-verdict motions were filed and denied. A sentence of life imprisonment was imposed for the murder conviction and a suspended sentence was imposed for possessing an instrument of crime. This direct appeal was taken only from the judgment of sentence for first-degree murder.³ Appellant contends: 1) that the Commonwealth created a prejudicial atmosphere at trial by suggesting to the jury that the homicide was a collective or “gang” deed; 2) that the Commonwealth improperly included irrelevant and personal inquiries in the cross-examination of the principal defense witness; and 3) that the Commonwealth was allowed to introduce improper rebuttal testimony that the deceased’s mother called the deceased to tell him she had talked with appellant’s sister. These three issues were not raised in appellant’s written post-verdict motions, as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1123(a).

Appellant’s written motions, consisting solely of standard boiler plate challenges to the weight and sufficiency of [381]*381the evidence, were filed on May 7, 1975, more than three months after we announced in Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 33, n. 1, 331 A.2d 213, 214, n. 1 (1975), that claims not presented in accordance with Rule 1123(a) would no longer be considered by our trial and appellate courts. Although appellant’s claims were presented orally and considered by the court below in its opinion, we stated in Blair that thenceforth strict compliance with Rule 1123(a) would be required. Since the post-verdict motions were filed after our decision in Blair, we will not consider claims not raised specifically in the written post-verdict motions. Commonwealth v. Waters, 477 Pa. 430, 436 n. 8, 384 A.2d 234, 237 n. 8 (1978). Accordingly, all of appellant’s claims were waived.

While appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in this appeal, this Court has an independent statutory duty to determine whether all the elements of first-degree murder have been proved, Act of Feb. 15, 1870, P.L. 15 § 2, 19 P.S. § 1187 (1964). After thorough review of the record, we are satisfied that the evidence presented supports a finding of murder in the first degree.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

ROBERTS, J., joins this opinion and files a concurring opinion. MANDERINO, J., files a dissenting opinion. JONES, former C. J., and POMEROY, 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

PER CURIAM.

Alfred Roach, appellant, was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree¹ and possessing an instrument of crime,² in connection with the shooting death of Maurice Dozier in Philadelphia on July 7, 1974. Post-verdict motions were filed and denied. A sentence of life imprisonment was imposed for the murder conviction and a suspended sentence was imposed for possessing an instrument of crime. This direct appeal was taken only from the judgment of sentence for first-degree murder.³ Appellant contends: 1) that the Commonwealth created a prejudicial atmosphere at trial by suggesting to the jury that the homicide was a collective or “gang” deed; 2) that the Commonwealth improperly included irrelevant and personal inquiries in the cross-examination of the principal defense witness; and 3) that the Commonwealth was allowed to introduce improper rebuttal testimony that the deceased’s mother called the deceased to tell him she had talked with appellant’s sister. These three issues were not raised in appellant’s written post-verdict motions, as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1123(a).

Appellant’s written motions, consisting solely of standard boiler plate challenges to the weight and sufficiency of [381]*381the evidence, were filed on May 7, 1975, more than three months after we announced in Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 33, n. 1, 331 A.2d 213, 214, n. 1 (1975), that claims not presented in accordance with Rule 1123(a) would no longer be considered by our trial and appellate courts. Although appellant’s claims were presented orally and considered by the court below in its opinion, we stated in Blair that thenceforth strict compliance with Rule 1123(a) would be required. Since the post-verdict motions were filed after our decision in Blair, we will not consider claims not raised specifically in the written post-verdict motions. Commonwealth v. Waters, 477 Pa. 430, 436 n. 8, 384 A.2d 234, 237 n. 8 (1978). Accordingly, all of appellant’s claims were waived.

While appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in this appeal, this Court has an independent statutory duty to determine whether all the elements of first-degree murder have been proved, Act of Feb. 15, 1870, P.L. 15 § 2, 19 P.S. § 1187 (1964). After thorough review of the record, we are satisfied that the evidence presented supports a finding of murder in the first degree.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

ROBERTS, J., joins this opinion and files a concurring opinion. MANDERINO, J., files a dissenting opinion. JONES, former C. J., and POMEROY, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 A.2d 1257, 477 Pa. 379, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-roach-pa-1978.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack