Arthur v. Commonwealth

Since I am convinced that the judgment should not be reversed upon the grounds-stated in the majority opinion, the reasons-therefor are briefly stated.

The majority opinion holds that the trial: court erred: (1) In failing to require the Commonwealth to “produce the written) statement of the accused”; and (2) in failing to exclude “the oral testimony of the witness, Bladyes, (sic) insofar as its substance was embraced in the writing”. Neither of these grounds should be held to constitute prejudicial error under the record in this case.

The question of whether or not counsel for appellant was…