No. 180 Harrisburg 1981, APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF SENTENCE OF MAY 20, 1981 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY, CRIMINAL NOS.18 CD 1980, 1584 CD 1980
Anthony S. Federico, Jr., Harrisburg, for appellant.
William A. Behe, Deputy District Attorney, Harrisburg, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Wieand, Cirillo and Popovich, JJ. Wieand, J., concurs in the result.
[ 316 Pa. Super. Page 384]
Appellant was charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance,*fn1 heroin. After a jury trial and conviction, the appellant, on July 8, 1980, moved for a new trial on the following grounds:
1. The verdict is contrary to the evidence.
2. The verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence.
3. The verdict is contrary to the law.
The appellant later filed a brief raising specific issues of law, including the admissibility of confessional statements and the propriety of the prosecutor's remarks to the jury in closing argument.
The trial court denied the post-verdict motions and imposed a sentence of three to six years' imprisonment. This appeal is from that judgment.
Among the grounds for reversal urged on this appeal are that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence inculpatory statements made to police by the defendant, and in allowing the prosecutor to make certain comments to the jury relating to the defendant's bail. A threshold procedural question which must be addressed is whether these issues are preserved for review in this Court.
After Commonwealth v. Gravely, 486 Pa. 194, 404 A.2d 1296 (1979), it should be abundantly clear that only issues specifically raised in post-verdict motions will be considered preserved for appellate review. In Gravely, the Supreme ...