Commonwealth v. Rush

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Rush

441 A.2d 1225, 497 Pa. 451, 1982 Pa. LEXIS 400

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 10, 1982

DocketNo. 80-3-786

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 441 A.2d 1225 (Commonwealth v. Rush) 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. Rush, 441 A.2d 1225, 497 Pa. 451, 1982 Pa. LEXIS 400 (Pa. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

FLAHERTY, Justice.

Appellant, John Rush, appeals from the denial of relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act [PCHA], Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. § 1180-1 to 14 (Supp. 1979-1980). The issue of the admissibility of his confession was decided adversely to him in his direct appeal, Commonwealth v. Rush, 459 Pa. 23, 326 A.2d 340 (1974), and is therefore finally litigated. PCHA supra at 19 P.S. § 1180-4(a)(3); Commonwealth v. Slavik, 449 Pa. 424, 297 A.2d 920 (1972).

Appellant also asserts that his trial counsel were ineffective for not raising objections to hearsay testimony implicating John Rush; to the prosecutor’s remarks concerning availability of witnesses to the defense not called but subpoenaed by the Commonwealth; to the prosecutor’s remarks made during summation and finally for not raising on appeal the admissibility of a hearsay statement as a dying declaration. Our examination of the record satisfies us that these contentions are without merit. See Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A.2d 349 (1967). Therefore, the Order of the Court below is affirmed.

McDERMOTT, 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

FLAHERTY, Justice.

Appellant, John Rush, appeals from the denial of relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act [PCHA], Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. § 1180-1 to 14 (Supp. 1979-1980). The issue of the admissibility of his confession was decided adversely to him in his direct appeal, Commonwealth v. Rush, 459 Pa. 23, 326 A.2d 340 (1974), and is therefore finally litigated. PCHA supra at 19 P.S. § 1180-4(a)(3); Commonwealth v. Slavik, 449 Pa. 424, 297 A.2d 920 (1972).

Appellant also asserts that his trial counsel were ineffective for not raising objections to hearsay testimony implicating John Rush; to the prosecutor’s remarks concerning availability of witnesses to the defense not called but subpoenaed by the Commonwealth; to the prosecutor’s remarks made during summation and finally for not raising on appeal the admissibility of a hearsay statement as a dying declaration. Our examination of the record satisfies us that these contentions are without merit. See Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A.2d 349 (1967). Therefore, the Order of the Court below is affirmed.

McDERMOTT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 A.2d 1225, 497 Pa. 451, 1982 Pa. LEXIS 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-rush-pa-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack