Commonwealth v. RoachCommonwealth v. Roach
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Eagen
Lead Opinion
OPINION
PER CURIAM.Alfred Roach, appellant, was convicted by a jury of murdеr in the first degree1 and possessing an instrument of crime,2 in connection with the shooting death of Maurice Dozier in Philadelphia on July 7, 1974. Post-verdict motions were filed and denied. A sentence of life imprisonment was impоsed for the murder conviction and a suspended sentence was imposed for possessing an instrument of crime. This direct appeal was taken only from the judgment of sentence for first-degree murder.3 Appellant contends: 1) that the Cоmmonwealth created a prejudicial atmosphеre at trial by suggesting to the jury that the homicide was a collеctive or “gang” deed; 2) that the Commonwealth improperly included irrelevant and personal inquiries in the cross-examination of the principal defense witness; and 3) that the Cоmmonwealth was allowed to introduce improper rebuttal testimony that the deceased’s mother called thе deceased to tell him she had talked with appellant’s sister. These three issues were not raised in appellant’s written post-verdict motions, as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Criminаl Procedure 1123(a).
Appellant’s written motions, consisting solely of standard boiler plate challenges to the weight аnd sufficiency of *381the evidence, were filed on May 7, 1975, morе than three months after we announced in Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 33, n. 1, 331 A.2d 213, 214, n. 1 (1975), that claims not presented in accordance with Rule 1123(a) would no longеr be considered by our trial and appellate courts. Although appellant’s claims were presented orаlly and considered by the court below in its opinion, we statеd in Blair that thenceforth strict compliance with Rule 1123(a) would bе required. Since the post-verdict motions were filed aftеr our decision in Blair, we will not consider claims not raised spеcifically in the written post-verdict motions. Commonwealth v. Waters, 477 Pa. 430, 436 n. 8, 384 A.2d 234, 237 n. 8 (1978). Accordingly, all of appellant’s claims were waived.
While appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in this appeal, this Court has an independent statutоry duty to determine whether all the elements of first-degree murdеr have been proved, Act of Feb. 15, 1870, P.L. 15 § 2,
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
ROBERTS, J., joins this oрinion and files a concurring opinion. MANDERINO, J., files a dissenting opinion. JONES, former C. J., and POMEROY, J., did not pаrticipate in the consideration or decision of this case.Notes
.
.
. Appellant has not perfected in this Court an аppeal from the judgment of sentence for possеssing an instrument of crime.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
I join the Opinion of the Court. I write only to point out that appellant filed post-verdict motions оn May 7, 1975, after publication of Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975), on March 1, 1975, and thereforе properly is subject to Blair. Had appellant filed post-verdict motions subsequent to our decision in Blair but before Blair received publication, it would be unfair to impose upon him a decisiоn of which he could not be aware. Commonwealth v. Barnes, *382- Pa. -, - A.2d - (J. 330 of 1976, filed March 23, 1978) (dissenting opinion of Roberts, J.); see Commonwealth v. Fortune, 464 Pa. 367, 346 A.2d 783 (1975); cf. Commonwealth v. Cheeks, 429 Pa. 89, 239 A.2d 793 (1968) (failure to assert right at trial did not waive right announced subsequent to trial).
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set forth in this writer’s dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Waters, 477 Pa. 430, 384 A.2d 234 (1978) (Manderino, J., dissenting).