Court Opinion

ID: 9758171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:14:31.14413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:47.660011
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
While I agree with a substantial portion of the opinion of the Court, I am compelled to note my disagreement with any suggestion that the “law of the case” has applicability to a criminal case. This doctrine has never been applied to a criminal case in Pennsylvania. See Commonwealth v. Tick, Inc., 431 Pa. 420, 246 A. 2d 424 (1968); Reamers Estate, 331 Pa. 117, 200 Atl. 35 (1938).
In my view, this case is controlled by our decision in Commonwealth v. Little, 432 Pa. 256, 248 A. 2d 32 (1968). See Commonwealth v. Dravecz, 424 Pa. 582, 227 A. 2d 904 (1967). Cf. Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 430 Pa. 532, 538, 243 A. 2d 412, 415 (1968); (Roberts, J., dissenting, joined by O’Brien and Cohen, JJ.); Commonwealth ex rel. Shadd v. Myers, 423 Pa. 82, 91, 223 A. 2d 296, 301 (1966) (Roberts, J., dissenting). On this direct appeal, allowed as if timely filed, Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S. Ct. 814 (1963), appellant is clearly entitled to a new trial. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S. Ct. 1229 (1965); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 451 Pa. 528, 535, 304 A. 2d 139, 142 (1973) (Roberts, J., concurring).
Mr. Justice O’Brien joins in this opinion.