Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Hawk

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 26, 1989No. Appeal Number 520Published

1Dissent

CIRILLO, President Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s order because I do not believe that, in this case, the Commonwealth has the burden to ensure that the record on appeal is complete. Moreover, I submit that once the Commonwealth has been granted an extension of time in which to bring the defendant to trial, its responsibility to show that it acted with due diligence is complete; this responsibility to act with due diligence does not follow the Commonwealth so as to nullify the rules of appellate procedure governing preparation and transmission of the record. See…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. YoungSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Commonwealth v. LohrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Commonwealth v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  4. Commonwealth v. StantonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Commonwealth v. DerrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

7 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