Commonwealth v. Rosetta

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Rosetta

405 A.2d 952, 266 Pa. Super. 543, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2405

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 5, 1979

Docket66 Special Transfer Docket

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 405 A.2d 952 (Commonwealth v. Rosetta) 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. Rosetta, 405 A.2d 952, 266 Pa. Super. 543, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2405 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On December 15, 1975, a jury convicted appellant, Bruno Rosetta, of voluntary manslaughter and acquitted him of one charge of murder and one charge of crimes committed with firearms. On August 15, 1977, the trial court denied appellant’s post verdict motions and imposed a sentence of imprisonment of 3 to 10 years and payment of costs.

Appellant asserts that the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury that his codefendant was an accomplice whose testimony was corrupt and therefore could not be relied upon unless corroborated. We find that the *545 trial court correctly left to the jury the determination whether the witness was an accomplice and properly instructed the jury concerning the value of testimony from an accomplice. See Commonwealth v. Sisak, 436 Pa. 262, 259 A.2d 428 (1969).

Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence of specific instances of past violent acts of the victim bearing on the defense of self-defense. The court permitted admission of other extensive evidence for the same purpose. We therefore find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this matter. Commonwealth v. Amos, 445 Pa. 297, 284 A.2d 748 (1971); see Commonwealth v. Horne, 479 Pa. 496, 388 A.2d 1040 (1978); Commonwealth v. Mennyweather, 458 Pa. 12, 329 A.2d 493 (1974).

Finally, appellant contends that the trial court “caused” the jury to return inconsistent verdicts by failing to instruct on the weapons offense. Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the trial court correctly instructed the jury concerning the weapons offense. Assuming that the jury, properly instructed, nonetheless returned an inconsistent verdict, appellant is still not entitled to a new trial. Commonwealth v. Carter, 444 Pa. 405, 282 A.2d 375 (1971).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

On December 15, 1975, a jury convicted appellant, Bruno Rosetta, of voluntary manslaughter and acquitted him of one charge of murder and one charge of crimes committed with firearms. On August 15, 1977, the trial court denied appellant’s post verdict motions and imposed a sentence of imprisonment of 3 to 10 years and payment of costs.

Appellant asserts that the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury that his codefendant was an accomplice whose testimony was corrupt and therefore could not be relied upon unless corroborated. We find that the *545 trial court correctly left to the jury the determination whether the witness was an accomplice and properly instructed the jury concerning the value of testimony from an accomplice. See Commonwealth v. Sisak, 436 Pa. 262, 259 A.2d 428 (1969).

Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence of specific instances of past violent acts of the victim bearing on the defense of self-defense. The court permitted admission of other extensive evidence for the same purpose. We therefore find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this matter. Commonwealth v. Amos, 445 Pa. 297, 284 A.2d 748 (1971); see Commonwealth v. Horne, 479 Pa. 496, 388 A.2d 1040 (1978); Commonwealth v. Mennyweather, 458 Pa. 12, 329 A.2d 493 (1974).

Finally, appellant contends that the trial court “caused” the jury to return inconsistent verdicts by failing to instruct on the weapons offense. Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the trial court correctly instructed the jury concerning the weapons offense. Assuming that the jury, properly instructed, nonetheless returned an inconsistent verdict, appellant is still not entitled to a new trial. Commonwealth v. Carter, 444 Pa. 405, 282 A.2d 375 (1971).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 A.2d 952, 266 Pa. Super. 543, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-rosetta-pasuperct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack