Commonwealthv.Davis

Supreme Court of PennsylvaniaMar 25, 1974
455 Pa. 466 (Pa. 1974)

Cases citing this document

How cited

  • Commonwealth v. Gans

    The physical evidence, according to the appellant, should have been suppressed as the product of these…

  • Commonwealth v. Davis

    The court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of life imprisonment. Our Supreme Court affirmed…

11 Citing cases

Argued January 15, 1974

Decided March 25, 1974

Criminal Law — Appeals — Review — Issues not raised in court below — Evidence — Testimony of forensic pathologist regarding distance weapon was fired.

Before JONES, C. J., EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.

Appeal, Nos. 408 and 411, Jan. T., 1973, from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, May T., 1971, Nos. 1203 and 1205, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Clarence R. Davis, Jr. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Indictments charging defendant with murder and aggravated robbery. Before DiNUBILE, J.

Verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree and aggravated robbery and judgment of sentence entered thereon. Defendant appealed.

Robert M. Pressman, with him Pressman and Lipsky, for appellant.

Mark Sendrow, Assistant District Attorney, with him David Richman, Assistant District Attorney, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.


We agree that the judgment of sentence should be affirmed, because in our view none of appellant's assignments of error justifies granting a new trial.

Of the four presently-claimed grounds for reversal, no objections were made in the trial court to three. It is well settled that issues not raised at trial will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Commonwealth v. Yount, 455 Pa. 303, 318, 314 A.2d 242, 250 (1974); Commonwealth v. Watlington, 452 Pa. 524, 306 A.2d 892 (1973); Commonwealth v. Agie, 449 Pa. 187, 296 A.2d 741 (1972); Pa. R. Crim. P. 1119(b).

Appellant's fourth claim is that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a forensic pathologist, a Commonwealth witness, to testify about the distance from which the weapon used to kill the victim was fired. However, the pathologist's testimony was completely consistent with appellant's version of the events surrounding the killing. If error were committed, it was error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824 (1967); Commonwealth v. Davis, 452 Pa. 171, 305 A.2d 715 (1973); Commonwealth v. Padgett, 428 Pa. 229, 237 A.2d 209 (1968); Commonwealth v. Pearson, 427 Pa. 45, 233 A.2d 552 (1967).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.