# Commonwealth v. Buehl

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 30, 1986 · 510 Pa. 363

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698879

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Roger Peter BUEHL, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 30, 1986
- **Citations:** 510 Pa. 363; 508 A.2d 1167; 1986 Pa. LEXIS 771
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hutchinson
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 164 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/9698879

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[appellant’s defense was not prejudiced by the fact that, at a prior time, his counsel had represented a Commonwealth witness”
- holding that “Appellant’s defense was not prejudiced by the fact that, at a prior time, his counsel had represented a Commonwealth witness”
- holding that defendants are not entitled to statements of prosecution witnesses in advance of trial where witnesses were not eyewitnesses
- stating that the use of a single photograph of a suspect when obtaining an identification may be impermissibly suggestive

## Opinion text

HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion. I write separately only to reiterate my belief that the jury’s sentence can be affirmed despite the consideration of an improper aggravating circumstance by the jury for the reasons expressed in Commonwealth v. Holcomb, 508 Pa. 425 , 456 n. 16, 498 A.2d 833 , 899 n. 16 (1985) (Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698879. Public record. Not legal advice.