Commonwealth v. Duncan
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Spaeth, J.:
I agree with the majority that since appellant did not raise by post-trial motion his claim that the victim was incompetent to testify, he cannot do so now. I cannot agree, however, that the record is adequate to show that appellant intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to file post-trial motions. In Commonwealth v. Grillo, 208 Pa. Superior Ct. 444, 222 A.2d 427 (1966), it was not clear whether the defendants were aware that their failure to file post-trial motions foreclosed their right to appeal. We therefore held that the record must…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. GrilloSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
- Commonwealth v. WardellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Commonwealth v. FrybergerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975