# Commonwealth v. Olivencia

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · April 20, 1979 · 265 Pa. Super. 439

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9640749

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Francisco OLIVENCIA, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 20, 1979
- **Citations:** 265 Pa. Super. 439; 402 A.2d 519; 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2129
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Spaeth
- **Judges:** Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van Voort Spaeth, Spaeth
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9640749

## Opinion text

SPAETH, Judge,
dissenting:
The stipulation of Cecilia’s testimony contained only an approximation of both the time when appellant entered her *453 house and the time between appellant’s entry and the arrival of the police officer. Because it consisted merely of approximations it could be viewed by the jury as not inconsistent with the Commonwealth’s case, and if inconsistent, very weak. Such a view of the stipulation was especially likely given the fact that Cecilia was not herself a witness. It was therefore essential that counsel interview the boyfriend and learn whether his version of the incident and the times involved was both more helpful and more definite than Cecilia’s. I cannot say that the boyfriend should have been called, for I do not know what he would have said. I believe, however, that counsel was ineffective for not asking him what he would have said. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 263 Pa.Super. 149 , 397 A.2d 790 (1978) (SPAETH, J., dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9640749. Public record. Not legal advice.