Court Opinion

ID: 9958793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:14:29.831804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:32.141542
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                             WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,                  : No. 277 WAL 2023
                                               :
                    Respondent                 :
                                               : Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                               : from the Order of the Superior Court
             v.                                :
                                               :
                                               :
HAROLD WALKER,                                 :
                                               :
                    Petitioner                 :

                                       ORDER

PER CURIAM

      AND NOW, this 9th day of April, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner is:

            Did the Trial Court err in allowing the following voir dire question as
            it impermissibly sought to disclose what a juror’s present opinion
            would have been under certain facts that were to be developed in the
            case, was in the nature of a jury instruction and/or was an incorrect
            statement of law: “Under Pennsylvania law, the testimony of the
            alleged victim standing alone, if believed by you, is sufficient proof
            upon which to find the defendant guilty in a sexual assault case.
            Thus, you may find the defendant guilty if the testimony of the alleged
            victim convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
            is guilty. Would you be able to follow this principle of law?”

      The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to list this matter for oral argument at the same

session as, and consecutive to, Commonwealth v. Smith, 234-235 EAL 2023.