Court Opinion

ID: 9758183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:14:49.147952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:47.700130
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I agree with the result reached by the majority. I desire, however, to emphasize that violation of Pa. R. Crim. P. 1113, precluding note-taking by jurors during the course of trial, must be raised at trial. Note-taking, like other trial errors, must be the subject of a timely objection in order to be preserved for appellate review. Post-trial discovery of, and objection to, tidal errors does not comport with the procedural requirements of Rule 1113. Had an objection properly been raised at trial, the judge would have been able to correct the now asserted procedural error. No objection having been made at trial, petitioner is foreclosed from raising this issue here. Commonwealth v. Paquette, 451 Pa. 250, 301 A. 2d 837 (1973); Commonwealth v. Agie, 449 Pa. 187, 296 A. 2d 741 (1972); Commonwealth v. Bittner, 441 Pa. 216, 272 A. 2d 484 (1971).