Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Commonwealth v. Duncan

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 24, 1975No. Appeal, No. 1764Published

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

  1. Commonwealth v. GrilloSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Commonwealth v. WardellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Commonwealth v. FrybergerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API