Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Starks

Citations

  • 450 A.2d 1363
  • 304 Pa. Super. 527
  • 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 5252

How courts have described this case

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

  • finding adequate foundation for admission of tape recordings where the interviewing detective identified the tape in its original physical form, and identified the voices and the opening contents of the recording
  • finding adequate foundation for admission of tape recordings where the interviewing detective identified the tape in its original physical form, and identified the voices and the opening contents of the recording
  • Commonwealth’s failure to provide tape in accordance with ordered discovery did not require new trial where defendant allowed time to prepare further
  • late disclosure of tape of interview with victim did not deny fair trial where defendant already had victim’s contemporaneous written statement, and de- dined court’s remedial offers
  • Commonwealth’s failure to provide tape in accordance with ordered discovery did not require new trial where defendant allowed to prepare further
  • commonwealth’s failure to provide tape of complaining witness in violation of discovery order did not prejudice defendant and did not require a new trial where defendant was offered a continuance to further prepare

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wickersham, McEwen, Lipez

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 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.