Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Rivera

Citations

  • 939 A.2d 355
  • 2007 Pa. Super. 361
  • 2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3931

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that defendant complied with promptness requirement of Rule 720(C) by filing within three weeks of publication of after-discovered evidence and “immediately” after its discovery
  • concluding that “procedure demands that the lower court develop the record and make [a] call in the first instance” on whether after-discovered evidence warrants a new trial
  • reiterating that after-discovered evidence may not be used solely for purposes of - 23 - J-A05019-21 impeachment
  • remanding for an evidentiary hearing based on claim of after-discovered evidence first raised on appeal
  • finding it unlikely that appellant could have discovered criminal activity of witness prior to exposure in news article
  • vacating judgment of sentence, remanding for evidentiary hearing regarding, inter alia, after-discovered evidence, and instructing trial court to re-impose judgment of sentence if new trial was not required

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Daniels, Musmanno, Panella

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.