Commonwealth v. Brown, PICS Case No. 12-1662 (Pa. Aug. 21, 2012) Todd, J.; Saylor, J., concurring; Castille, C.J., concurring and dissenting; Eakin, J., concurring and dissenting (124 pages).

A conviction that rests solely on the prior inconsistent statements of witnesses who testified at trial, but recanted earlier testimony at trial, does not offend due process, provided the makers of such statements were available for cross examination; in addition, the court held that in determining whether an out-of-court declaration is admissible under Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3) as a statement against penal interest, the court interpreted this rule narrowly and permitted admission only of those individual statements which tended to subject declarant to criminal liability. Because the lower courts erred by prohibiting co-defendant's confession to be entered into evidence as statements against interest, the court vacated appellant's convictions and remanded for a new trial.

September 11, 2012 at 12:00 AM

1 minute read