Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

224 Pa. Super. 337

Commonwealth v. Bonaduce

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 14, 1973

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1973-06-14

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1982

1 state decisions

Relies on Commonwealth v. Phillips

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1973-06-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion

Per Curiam,

¶2Appellant contends that after-discovered evidence should entitle him to a new trial. In the briefs of the parties, reference is made to an affidavit setting forth: (1) the reason the offered evidence was not available at time of trial; and (2) the nature of the evidence and its materiality to appellant’s defense.

¶3We have searched the record and find no affidavit. Under the circumstances, we are unable to mate a determination of the matter on the bare allegations of counsel. From the state of the record, we cannot decide if the criteria for the grant of a new trial because of after-discovered evidence, as set forth in Commonwealth v. Phillips, 183 Pa. Superior Ct. 377, 132 A. 2d 733 (1957), have been satisfied.

¶4We remand this case to the lower court to obtain a complete record for purposes of appeal.

/224/pasuper/337 · .json · Public domain