# Commonwealth v. Richardson

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 26, 1978 · 476 Pa. 571

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764300

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Raymond RICHARDSON, A/K/a, Willie Polite, A/K/a, Leroy MacKe, Appellant (Two Cases)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 26, 1978
- **Citations:** 476 Pa. 571; 383 A.2d 510; 1978 Pa. LEXIS 842
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** Eagen, O'brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino
- **Cited by:** 25 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/9764300

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that an appellant’s claims related to when a fingerprint was placed on a door jamb present a credibility question for a jury to determine, and do not implicate admissibility

## Opinion text

*589 ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
There is no reasonable possibility that the contact between the trial judge and the jury could have prejudiced appellant. I therefore concur in the result reached by the Court on this issue. See Kersey Mfg. Co. v. Rozic, 422 Pa. 564, 570 , 222 A.2d 713, 716 (1966) (concurring opinion of Roberts, J.); Yarsunas v. Boros, 423 Pa. 364, 368 , 223 A.2d 696, 698 (1966) (dissenting opinion); cf. Argo v. Goodstein, 424 Pa. 612, 631 , 228 A.2d 195, 197 (1967) (dissenting opinion).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764300. Public record. Not legal advice.