# Commonwealth v. Reeves

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · April 28, 1978 · 255 Pa. Super. 409

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730506

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Henry T. REEVES, Carlton Brown, Robert Mangini, Michael Moffo, Frank Mawhinney, Joseph C. Ford, Carl K. Henry, Appellants (Two Cases)
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 28, 1978
- **Citations:** 255 Pa. Super. 409; 387 A.2d 877; 1978 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3014
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Spaeth
- **Judges:** Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van Voort Spaeth, Spaeth
- **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/9730506

## Opinion text

*432 SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by Judge CERCONE but would award appellants a new trial for the following different reasons.
The district attorney’s remarks during his closing argument exceeded the bounds of professional propriety and were prejudicial to appellants. Contra, Dissenting Opinion at 461-470. This is true especially in regard to the district attorney’s characterization of appellants as a “mob” and as “criminals [to be brought] to justice.” Id. at 463. Further the district attorney drew an impermissible inference from the evidence that the individuals capable of participating in the destruction of property at the construction site were also capable of injuring someone’s person, and that therefore the refusal to divulge the identity of an informant were justified. Id. at 464-465.
The award of a new trial is also required because appellants were denied a fair trial by the prosecutor’s failure to disclose that Marino had testified mistakenly at the hearing on the defense motion for the disclosure of the names and whereabouts of all witnesses known to the prosecution, and that in fact, as he subsequently realized, Marino knew the identity of his informant. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). This informant was a civilian eyewitness to the incident and might have provided evidence material to appellants’ defense. Commonwealth v. Carter, 427 Pa. 53 , 233 A.2d 284 (1967). Since Marino informed the prosecutor that he had testified mistakenly at the hearing at least a month and a half before trial commenced, the prosecutor had ample opportunity to inform the court of the error.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730506. Public record. Not legal advice.