Court Opinion

ID: 9753992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:37:35.351086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:46.287279
License: Public Domain

*292CIRILLO, Judge,
concurring:
I concur with the result reached in the Opinion of Judge Popovich in this matter .but I disagree as to his treatment of the appellant’s second contention. The appellant’s second contention concerned a claim that the trial court erred in refusing to allow defense counsel an opportunity for further cross examination. Judge Popovich, in his Opinion, dismisses the appellant’s contention as having been waived because it was an oral protest instead of a written complaint on post trial motions. It is my belief that oral motions are acceptable under Pa.Rule of Criminal Procedure 1123 which provides in Subsection (b) that “if the defendant agrees on the record, the post-verdict motions may be made orally at the conclusion of the trial.” Therefore, I believe that the trial court properly addressed the merits of the oral motion. However, since Judge Popovich, in his Opinion, also addressed the merits in his last footnote and found that there was no merit to the oral motion, I am in agreement that there was no merit.
I hereby concur with the Opinion of Judge Popovich.