Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.



decided: April 13, 1978.


No. 393 April Term, 1977, Appeal from the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Criminal Division, at Number 1342 July Term, 1975.


Duke George, Jr., Arnold, for appellant.

James J. Conte, Assistant District Attorney, and Albert M. Nichols, District Attorney, Greensburg, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Watkins, President Judge, and Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort and Spaeth, JJ. Watkins, former President Judge, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Author: Hoffman

[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 25]

Appellant contends that he is being denied meaningful appellate review because there is no record of his requested points for charge. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

After trial on December 11, 1975, a Westmoreland County jury returned a guilty verdict against appellant on the charge of recklessly endangering another person.*fn1 Without

[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 26]

    assigning any specific reason, the lower court denied appellant's post-verdict motions which alleged that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, against the evidence, against the law, and that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury as requested in appellant's points for charge, numbers two and three. The court sentenced appellant to a one to two year term of imprisonment and to pay the costs of prosecution. This appeal followed.

Appellant contends that meaningful appellate review is not possible because the record does not contain his requested points for charge.*fn2 He requests that we grant him a new trial. The Commonwealth responds by asserting that appellant did not file any requested points for charge, therefore, he cannot raise their denial on appeal. We believe that Pa.R.A.P.1926, 42 Pa.C.S. states the applicable procedure in the instant case. The Rule provides as follows:

"If any difference arises as to whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the lower court, the difference shall be submitted to and settled by that court after notice to the parties and opportunity for objection, and the record made to conform to the truth. If anything material to either party is omitted from the record by error or accident or is misstated therein, the parties by stipulation, or the lower court either before or after the record is transmitted to the appellate court, or the appellate court, on proper suggestion or of its own initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement be corrected, and if necessary that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted. All other questions as to the form and content of the record shall be presented to the appellate court." Because there is a factual dispute between the parties which we cannot resolve, we remand to the lower court pursuant to Rule 1926. The lower court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing and decide the controversy. If the lower court determines that appellant did submit points for charge which are not on the

[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 27]

    record, the parties may then proceed in accordance with Pa.R.A.P.1923, 42 Pa.C.S.*fn3 If the lower court finds that appellant did not submit points for charge, appellant may file an appeal which advances those issues properly preserved for appellate review.

Judgment of sentence vacated and case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.