Commonwealth v. Watkins
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Cercone, J.,
This appeal arises from appellant’s conviction after a jury trial of two counts of forgery and two counts of theft by deception. In her appeal appellant argues that she is entitled to a new trial because: (1) the proof at trial did not conform to the allegations in the indictment; (2) inadmissible hearsay evidence was used to explain inconsistencies in the identification testimony proffered by the Commonwealth; and, (3) the in-court identification was tainted by an illegal out-of-court confrontation between appellant and the Commonwealth’s witnesses. We find no…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Brookhart v. JanisSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Commonwealth v. WhitingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. FantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Commonwealth v. FowlerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Commonwealth v. FantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978