Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Commonwealth v. D'Amato

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 2, 2004No. 332 CAPPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

Justice CASTILLE.

I join the Majority Opinion, except with respect to its resolution of appellant’s after-discovered evidence claim involving William Boyle’s alleged “recantation.”1 Because I believe that this claim is resolvable now, and fails, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion which orders a remand for review of Boyle’s new statement.

After-discovered evidence claims may arise far earlier in a criminal matter than upon review under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541, et seq. Indeed, new evidence may be found in time…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  2. Commonwealth v. McGillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. Commonwealth v. Abu-JamalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Commonwealth v. YarrisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  5. Commonwealth v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001

5 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