Court Opinion

ID: 9642072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:47:47.829892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:42.707731
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority is being overly technical in a way that I thought had been rejected by this Court. Appellant filed post-verdict motions and requested permission to file supplemental motions after receiving a transcript of the testimony. Appellant later raised, in writing, additional issues for consideration. These were timely raised in a brief submitted to the post-verdict motion court. The trial court and this Court refused to consider the issues raised because, although in writing, they were submitted in a brief and not in a “supplemental motion.” The distinction is absurd. The error is only one of a caption. Had appellant typed or printed on his brief the “magic words” — supplemental motion, there would be no problem. I must dissent.
I wish also to note that the procedure of filing a motion before submitting a brief at the post-verdict stage of the appellate process is the only stage of the appellate process where we require that a motion containing, in effect, a statement of the questions presented be submitted immediately. Later we only require a notice of appeal and give counsel time to prepare before outlining the questions presented in a brief — not before. Why should we require a “statement of questions presented” (post-verdict motion) at the earliest point in the appellate process? I know our Rules say so — but they should not and should be changed. Since *219they now do, however, we should not penalize counsel who presents issues in writing but uses, in effect, the wrong caption.