holding that admission of evidence of activity not done in furtherance of the conspiracy was harmless error where defendant’s participation was fully established by the testimony of another co-conspirator
How later courts described this case
- holding that admission of evidence of activity not done in furtherance of the conspiracy was harmless error where defendant’s participation was fully established by the testimony of another co-conspirator
- “The duration of a conspiracy depends upon the facts of the particular case, that is, it depends upon the scope of the agreement entered into by its members.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)
- declarations of co-conspirator admissible provided declarations were made during the conspiracy and in furtherance of the common design
- duration of conspiracy is a question of fact
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting.
Unlike the majority, I see no reason for this Court now to remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine some “conceivable” reason trial counsel might have had for failing to preserve the issue of pre-trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. In my view, the record is clear that the issue should have been preserved. See Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259, 286 , 372 A.2d 687, 700 (1977) (Hubbard I) (Roberts, J., joined by Manderino, J., dissenting). “No ‘reasonable basis designed to effectuate’ appellant’s interests” exists which would justify counsel’s failure to preserve the issue. Id., 472 Pa. at 288 , 372 A.2d at 700-701 . See also Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 485 Pa. 353, 360 , 402 A.2d 999, 1003 (1979) (Hubbard II) (Roberts, J., dissenting). I would therefore vacate judgments of sentence and remand for a hearing on the merits of appellant’s claim.