Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2017 Pa. Super. 262

169 A.3d 64

Commonwealth v. Ribot

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 15, 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2017-08-15

Decided 2017-08-15

¶1CONCURRING STATEMENT BY

FITZGERALD, J.:

¶2I agree with the majority that the best evidence rule does not preclude the admission of testimony that Appellant was in possession of the buy money. However, I believe the trial court acted within its discretion when it credited Appellant’s evidence of a written policy requiring that the buy money be photocopied over the testimony regarding a change in policy, Thus, there was an adequate basis for the trial court to find a violation of departmental policy, which could give rise to a sanction. However, the preclusion of all testimony regarding the buy money appears to be a drastic remedy that is not supported by the circumstances of this case. Thus, I concur, in the result.

/2017/pasuper/262 · .json · Public domain