Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Choice

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 7, 2003Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

KLEIN, J.:

¶ 1 The majority relies on language in Commonwealth v. Dennis, 552 Pa. 331, 715 A.2d 404 (1998), for the principle that something cannot be considered after-discovered evidence justifying a new trial unless “the evidence will not be used solely for purposes of impeachment.” Id. at 415. I do not believe this is a correct statement of the law no matter how much it has been blindly quoted in the cases. I would reverse and remand for a hearing on whether the evidence could have been discovered before trial by reasonable diligence.

¶ 2 The full quote, recently cited…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Brogan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  2. Commonwealth v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  3. Commonwealth v. DennisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Commonwealth v. MostellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  5. Commonwealth v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

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