Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. David ALLEN, Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2010-02-23
Citations: 605 Pa. 220
Docket Number: No. 219 EAL 2009
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. David ALLEN, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 605
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
988 A.2d 668
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. David ALLEN, Petitioner.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Feb. 23, 2010.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMAND ED to the Superior Court for consideration of whether the trial court improperly permitted newly-discovered evidence regarding the alleged contents of a telephone conversation between Petitioner and his wife to be introduced at trial over Petitioner's objection, as the Superior Court erroneously found the issue to be waived because Petitioner did not also additionally request a mistrial. See Commonwealth v. Maloney, 469 Pa. 342, 365 A.2d 1237, 1242 (1976) (holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection, and it was overruled by the trial court, a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent, and the trial court's denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection).