Com. v. Ribot, A. (concurring)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-A31017-16 2017 PA Super 262 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. ANGEL RIBOT : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1190 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Order March 27, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009168-2014 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MOULTON, and FITZGERALD*, JJ. CONCURRING STATEMENT BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED AUGUST 15, 2017 I agree with the majority that the best evidence rule does not preclude the admission of testimony that Appellant was in possession of the buy money. However, I believe the trial court acted within its discretion when it credited Appellant’s evidence of a written policy requiring that the buy money be photocopied over the testimony regarding a change in policy. Thus, there was an adequate basis for the trial court to find a violation of departmental policy, which could give rise to a sanction. However, the preclusion of all testimony regarding the buy money appears to be a drastic remedy that is not supported by the circumstances of this case. concur in the result. ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. Thus, I

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.