Court Opinion

ID: 9758864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:53:09.843608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:26.394452
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Pomeeoy:
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Dutton, 453 Pa. 547, 551, 307 A. 2d 238, 240 (1973), I am obliged to dissent also in this case. In addition, I take this occasion to note my continuing agreement with Mr. Justice Eagen that “Rule 118 is a mere procedural device, lacking in constitutional dimension”. Commonwealth v. Tingle (Eagen, J., concurring, joined by Jones, C. J. and Pomeroy, J.), 451 Pa. 241, 249, 301 A. 2d 701, 705 (1973).
Mr. Chief Justice Jones and Mr. Justice Eagen join in this dissenting opinion.