# Commonwealth v. Favors

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · December 21, 1979 · 273 Pa. Super. 109

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701559

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Percy FAVORS, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 21, 1979
- **Citations:** 273 Pa. Super. 109; 416 A.2d 1113; 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3372
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hester
- **Judges:** Hester, Hoffman, Catania
- **Cited by:** 7 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/9701559

## Opinion text

HESTER, Judge,
dissenting:
At 1:30 on the morning of March 12, 1977, appellant, in the company of James Allen and James Monroe, by the use of subterfuge, gained admission to the apartment of Eleanor McKeever. The three were armed with guns. She was forced to lie on the floor where she was tied up. Allen placed a gun to her head and told her, “I’m going to ask you one more time, where is the money and where is the reefer.” Ms. McKeever’s four year-old daughter and another four year-old girl were sleeping in the adjoining bedroom. Appellant opened the bedroom door and stated, “If somebody don’t tell where it’s at, one of these kids is going to get *115 hurt.” Appellant and Monroe forced Ms. McKeever to reveal the location of her money which was taken by the two men. Monroe then forced her to perform oral sex upon him following which appellant attempted anal intercourse. When he was unsuccessful he proceeded to rape her. She was then raped by Monroe.
The trio were apprehended by the Philadelphia police as they fled from the McKeever apartment building. They were immediately returned to the McKeever apartment where they were identified ten to twenty minutes following the conclusion of the incident. Monroe gave a confession to the police. It was read into evidence during the trial. Appellant was convicted of burglary, criminal conspiracy, robbery and possession of instrument of crime.
Appellant received a fair trial. There can be no serious question as to his guilt. The majority would now reverse the conviction and remand for an evidentiary hearing based upon a technical Rule 1100 question contributed to in no small part by appellant’s request for a line-up for a non-essential Commonwealth witness and appellant’s untimely motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 1100(c).
I dissent most vigorously.
I would affirm on the comprehensive well-structured Opinion of Judge Anderson of the court below.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701559. Public record. Not legal advice.