Title: Com., Aplt v. Ronald Sholcosky, Aple (Concurring Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 100 M.D. APPEAL DOCKET, 130 M.D. APPEAL DOCKET, 16 M.D. APPEAL DOCKET, 174 M.D. APPEAL DOCKET, 179 M.D. APPEAL DOCKET, 18 AND 53 M.D. APPEAL DOCKETS, 180 M.D. APPEAL DOCKET, 1997, 1997 AND NO. 49 E.D. APPEAL DOCKET, 28 M.D. APPEAL DOCKET
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: November 9, 1998

[J-120-1997] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. RONALD SHOLCOSKY, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 28 M.D. Appeal Docket 1997 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered 01/05/96 at 1616PHL94, vacating the order entered 04/21/94 at No. 93-CR-569 and remanding to the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County SUBMITTED: September 2, 1997 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE CAPPY DECIDED: NOVEMBER 9, 1998 While I believe that the rationale of the dissent is meritorious, I am constrained to join the majority for the reasons noted in footnote one of the majority opinion, to wit, the issue addressed by the dissent regarding the application of the evidentiary rule announced in Commonwealth v. Brady, 510 Pa. 123, 507 A.2d 66 (1986) to opinion evidence, was not raised before the trial court nor offered on appeal by the Commonwealth, thus, the issue has been waived.