*1 Wil- Quinn аnd Keith attacks the Appellant belief because unworthy appel- White liams and Albert also taken out contеxt. lant’s statements were in a position of the witnesses was contends that one rob- his role conversation about overhear appellant’s were mat- credibility contentions bery-murder. Appellant’s resolved factfinder. The jury of thе ters within the function to appellant. matter adverse credibility were issues be considered remainder Three brief. supplemental in a se pro raised by appellant between delay unnecessary issues: the of an allegation these suggestive of a one-on-one the use arraignment, arrest use of testimo identification, perjured and the prosecution’s review because for appellate have not been ny, motions. Com raised in written post-verdict Blair, monwealth v. ineffective assistance raises a claim of
Finally, appellant file mo- appropriate of trial fails to what specify the appellant tions. Unfortunately, been raised in the should have issues alleged mеritorious has failed to indicate therefore, the and, motions was ineffective. trial counsel what manner of sentеnce affirmed. Judgment AYE, George Aye, Appellant. a/k/a
Argued Aug. 1979.
Filed March *2 Abraham, Philadelphia,
Richard P. Philadelphia, Attorney, District Diamond, Assistant Paul Commonweаlth, appellee. HESS, JJ.* and HOFFMAN, EAGEN Before * Pennsylvania, Eagen Court J. Justice Michael Chief of Berks Pleas Judge of Common Warren K. Hess of and designation. sitting by County, Pennsylvania, are PER CURIAM: murder of by jury found guilty Aye After post-trial offense. weapons
the third and a degree appeals pronounced, motions were refused to alleged prosecutorial raised relate were taken. The issues with statements and failure to supply misconduct to a Common- lie detector test administered wеalth witness. misconduct, it is alleged that
In relation to prosecutorial in his final on numerous occasions inferring advoсacy of proper exceeded limits making untruthful that appellant contention Such other in certain circumstаnc- on appeal consideration proper es. Commonwealth con- were made but admits statements *3 on advocacy. limitations that did not exceed
tends
alternative,
the
contended,
the
that
Furthermore,
in
it
Ad-
for our consideration.
has not been
objection
post
thе
verdict
original
it
not included in
was
mittedly,
forth
alleging
were set
motion.
Supplemental
by
attorney
improper advocacy
terms
general
coun-
(same
appellate
of
counsel
and ineffectiveness
trial
these remarks.
sel)
object
to
to
failing
Commonwealth’s final
the
in the
Certain of
remarks
that the
indicate
district
opinion,
our
argument,
This was im
untruthful.
bеing
referred to defendant as
Kuebler,
358,
484 Pa.
399 A.2d
proper.
333,
to his request polygraph support stated was a Commonwealth witness who first to test polygraph in the crime. He take agreed involved then was He which indicated that he untruthful. two appellant. Copies second statement implicating testing to but the defense counsel supplied The Com ruling data was not correct. supplied. data. required supply testing monwealth was not to Gee, Commonwealth v. must be remanded for
As indicated the record we have ineffectiveness the issue of hearing evidentiary remarks of Com- failing counsel must in final New argument. trial In the event that the appointed represent *4 effective trial not denied court rules that appellant filed. counsel, may a new appeal with our in accordance proceeding remanded Record opinion. dissenting opinion.
HOFFMAN, J., files a HOFFMAN, dissenting: Judge, before us the record It apparent I is dissent. prosecu- for failing was ineffective 373 guilt belief appellant’s personal expressions tor’s of appel to the issue unrelated statements clearly These or innocence. guilt lant’s See, a fair trial. have deprived as to prejudicial Evans, v. e. g., of no reasona I can conceive therein. (1978), and cases cited interests, Com appellant’s to effеctuate designed ble basis v. Washington Maroney, ex rel. to object counsel’s (1967), justifying A.2d no need there is Accordingly, statements. to these into counsel’s inquiry this case for to remand Bullock, Pa.Super. objecting. error Moreover, becausе reversible entertain us, we may properly record before on the apparent assistance, notwithstanding сlaim of ineffective appellant’s whose effec here represented Fox, question. tiveness at trial I would rеverse 475, 479, new trial grant judgments I dissent. Accordingly, ineffectiveness. because of counsel’s DOYLE, Joseph Appellant. 31, 1978. March
Submitted Filed Oct.