Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. DiNicola

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 20, 1985No. 1385PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WIEAND, Judge:

An appeal by the Commonwealth from an order partially suppressing testimony of a hypnotically refreshed witness requires that we review and apply recent decisions to determine the admissibility of testimony from such a witness. The trial court suppressed the testimony of Deborah Sweet, a Commonwealth witness, to the extent that such testimony could not be verified by a prehypnotic statement made by the witness. We affirm.

On August 30, 1979, a fire consumed Deborah Sweet’s apartment in a two-story building in Erie, killing her two young children and an upstairs neighbor. Sweet,…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. DuggerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Commonwealth v. KichlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  3. People v. HughesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. People v. GuerraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Commonwealth v. NazarovitchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. PollittSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
  2. Commonwealth v. StarkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Commonwealth v. SchneiderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  4. Commonwealth v. ReedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. Liles v. BalmerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API