Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Bracero

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 16, 1984No. 56Published

1DissentBeck, Judge

I dissent. I would remand for a new trial on the ground that the trial court erred in excluding the proffered testimony by Harry Tobias concerning statements by Frankie “Spunk” Rodriguez against Rodriguez’ penal interest. Although I base my conclusion on the law as it now stands, I suggest that this case demonstrates the need to clarify the law in this area.

The exception to the hearsay rule for declarations against interest originally extended only to statements against the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest. See Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 33 S.Ct. 449, 57 L.Ed. 820…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Donnelly v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  3. Commonwealth v. ColonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Commonwealth v. HutchinsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  5. Commonwealth v. HackettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1973

4 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