Court Opinion

ID: 9640749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:14:22.232256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:58.488810
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
dissenting:
The stipulation of Cecilia’s testimony contained only an approximation of both the time when appellant entered her *453house and the time between appellant’s entry and the arrival of the police officer. Because it consisted merely of approximations it could be viewed by the jury as not inconsistent with the Commonwealth’s case, and if inconsistent, very weak. Such a view of the stipulation was especially likely given the fact that Cecilia was not herself a witness. It was therefore essential that counsel interview the boyfriend and learn whether his version of the incident and the times involved was both more helpful and more definite than Cecilia’s. I cannot say that the boyfriend should have been called, for I do not know what he would have said. I believe, however, that counsel was ineffective for not asking him what he would have said. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 263 Pa.Super. 149, 397 A.2d 790 (1978) (SPAETH, J., dissenting).