# Commonwealth v. Stanton

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · March 29, 1976 · 239 Pa. Super. 47

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6294239

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. Stanton
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 29, 1976
- **Citations:** 239 Pa. Super. 47; 362 A.2d 355; 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1927
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Spaeth
- **Judges:** Cercone, Hoffman, Jacobs, Price, Spaeth, Voort, Watkins
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Stanton, 479 Pa. 521 (1978).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6294239

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Spaeth, J.:
I join Judge Hoffman’s dissenting opinion, that *66 appellant Howell should be awarded a new trial. I would also award a new trial to appellant Hinkley.
Granted that the doctrine of fundamental error is no more. Still, when two defendants are tried together; when the same error is made as to both defendants; when the attorney for each defendant is- incompetent and therefore fails to protect the record; and when on appeal the new attorney for one defendant points out the error, and accordingly wins a new trial for his client; in these circumstances I think it does no great violence to Clair or Dancer to award the other defendant a new trial too. He will get it as soon as he gets competent counsel, in a PCHA hearing. I would give it to him now.
Hoffman, J., joins in this opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6294239. Public record. Not legal advice.