Court Opinion

ID: 9757107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:18:56.645362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:34.919409
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
I join Judge CERCONE’s opinion, except in one respect.
I do not agree that Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 219 Pa.Super. 1, 280 A.2d 410 (1971), is distinguishable. In my opinion, under it the Commonwealth was obliged to disclose to the jury the arrangement with Miss Dunkle; I think the lower court meant, and Miss Dunkle understood it to mean, that costs would be reduced if, and only if, she testified in support of the Commonwealth. Thus she had at least a $550 inducement to lie. I cannot understand, or accept, the statement that “Miss Dunkle’s testimony that no arrangement had been made was not even false.” Opinion by CERCONE, J., at 237.
The only reason I nevertheless join in the order affirming the judgment of sentence is that appellant’s counsel knew or should have known all about the arrangement. Query *240whether he was ineffective, i. e., had any reasonable basis for not disclosing it to the jury.
HOFFMAN, J., joins.