Court Opinion

ID: 9645145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:13:56.962141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:24.012718
License: Public Domain

WATKINS, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I agree with that portion of the Majority’s opinion that holds that the defendant’s Rule 1100 rights were not violated.
I disagree with the Majority’s reasoning with respect to the issue of whether the prosecutor’s remarks were so prejudicial to the defendant that he was denied a fair and impartial trial. I would hold that the trial court’s instructions to the jury cured any impropriety in the Commonwealth’s summation. Not every improper remark by a pros*209ecutor warrants a new trial and the trial judge must have reasonable discretion in deciding whether the bounds of propriety have been exceeded. Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 319 A.2d 669 (1974). I would hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case.