# Commonwealth v. Bricker

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · February 13, 1985 · 506 Pa. 571

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9758759

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Robert BRICKER, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 13, 1985
- **Citations:** 506 Pa. 571; 487 A.2d 346; 1985 Pa. LEXIS 296
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hutchinson
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 35 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/9758759

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “remarks implying that the defense used its right of discovery to present false testimony” had violated “the rules … that a prosecutor must limit statements to facts in evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom and must not express personal opinions on guilt, c…
- finding counsel ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor’s improper closing argument

## Opinion text

HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result the majority reaches in this case because I believe the trial court’s failure to record and transcribe the side-bar conferences has not provided this Court with a “full transcript or other equivalent picture of the trial proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Shields, 477 Pa. 105, 108, 383 A.2d 844, 846 (1978). See also Entsminger v. Iowa, 386 U.S. 748 , 87 S.Ct. 1402 , 18 L.Ed.2d 501 (1967) (“clerk’s transcript” containing only the information or indictment, the grand jury minutes, the bailiff’s oath, statements and instructions, and various orders and judgment entries of the court, but not a transcript of the evidence, briefs or arguments of counsel does not meet constitutional requirements binding on a state in administering its appellate criminal procedures). Such a trial transcript does not comport with either the applicable constitutional standards or with Pa.R.Crim.P. 9030. That rule provides, in relevant part:
Rule 9030. Recording and Transcribing Court Proceedings
(a) In court cases, after a defendant has been held for court, proceedings in open court shall be recorded.
(b) Upon the motion of any party, upon its own motion, or as required by law, the court shall determine and designate those portions of the record, if any, which are to be transcribed.
*590 As I read this rule, the recording of all proceedings held in open court is mandatory. I believe that compliance with this rule is of the utmost importance in capital cases such as the present one, where our de novo review makes a complete record of the trial proceedings absolutely essential.
Because there are no transcripts of the side-bar conferences, I cannot make a judgment on appellant’s allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. Without their transcription, it is not possible to say to what extent the prosecutor failed to follow the guidelines or instructions of the trial judge, or to what extent defense counsel adequately objected to the perceived misconduct of the prosecutor. Since effective appellate review seems to me .precluded by the deficiencies in the transcript, to which appellant has a constitutional right, I concur with the majority’s mandate directing a new trial in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9758759. Public record. Not legal advice.