Commonwealth v. Jones

Opinion by

Spaeth, J.,

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of two counts of aggravated robbery; a prior trial for the same offenses had ended in a hung jury. Appellant claims that he is entitled to a new trial because the Commonwealth’s cross-examination of him during the second trial was unnecessarily prejudicial in that the jury could infer from it that he had not taken the stand in the first trial. We agree.1

The charges arise out of an alleged robbery of a seafood restaurant at 10:00 p.m. on January 12, 1972. The Commonwealth’s evidence at the second trial consisted of testimony by two…