Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
157 citation events (117 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Com. v. Dowdy, J. (pasuperct, 2020-08-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Dowdy, J.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2020 · confidence medium
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 547 Pa. 137 , 689 A.2d 211, 212 (1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Evans
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2018 · confidence medium
In Commonwealth v. Widmer , 547 Pa. 137 , 689 A.2d 211 (1997), our Supreme Court recognized that this optional practice, when applied to a weight of the evidence claim, created a problem with the preservation of weight claim since "challenges to the weight of the evidence can never be raised 'before or during trial;' rather such challenges can only be raised after trial." Widmer , 689 A.2d at 213 (Cappy, J., concurring).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of: N.A.P., a Minor
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2018 · confidence medium
Id. at 97 (noting “fairness dictates that the instant case be remanded to the [juvenile] court and [the defendant be] permitted to file a motion for a new trial nunc pro tunc challenging the weight of the evidence”), quoting Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211, 213 (Pa. 1997) (Cappy, J., concurring) (some brackets in original).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Ferrante, R.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2018 · confidence medium
The trial court did not address these contentions in its Opinion. “[A] challenge to the weight of the evidence must first be raised in the trial court and failure to do so [will constitute] a waiver of the claim.” Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211, 212 (Pa. 1997).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Interest of: D.J.B., A Minor, Appeal of: D.J.B. (3×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2018 · confidence medium
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211, 212 (Pa. 1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of: A.J.J., a Minor
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2017 · confidence medium
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211, 212 (Pa. 1997)[; s]ee also Commonwealth v. Karkaria, 625 A.2d 1167 , 1170 n.3 (Pa. 1993) (“An allegation that the verdict is against the ‘weight’ of the evidence is a matter to be resolved by the trial court.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In The Interest of: T.W., a minor, Appeal of: T.W.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2015 · confidence medium
However, our Supreme Court held in In re J.B.: In sum, because we conclude that finding J.B.’s weight of the evidence claim to be waived under these circumstances would be manifestly unjust—a state of affairs our Court recognized in [Commonwealth v.] Widmer, [ 689 A.2d 211, 212 (1997)] was unacceptable—principles of fundamental justice and sound reason counsel that our Court take the same prudent path in the instant matter, and remand this matter to the juvenile court to allow J.B. to file a post-dispositional motion nunc pro tunc.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of J.B., Appeal of: Comm
Pa. · 2014 · confidence medium
First, while I realize that one can posit in an abstract way that a challenge to a verdict or adjudication cannot logically precede the verdict or adjudication, see Majority Opinion, slip op. at 36; Commonwealth v. Widmer, 547 Pa. 137, 141 , 689 A.2d 211, 213 (1997) (Cappy, J., concurring), a similar temporal observation could be made about every routine ruling pertaining to the admission of evidence in a trial or adjudication.
examined Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of J.B., Appeal of: Comm (7×)
Pa. · 2014 · confidence medium
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 547 Pa. 137 , 689 A.2d 211, 212 (1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Estate of Smaling
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2013 · confidence medium
In a concurring opinion, Justice Cappy stated that he would have "specifically directed] that the Criminal Rules Committee amend Rule 1410 as soon as practical to explicitly provide for weight of the evidence challenges.” Widmer, 689 A.2d at 213 (Cappy, J., concurring).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Town of Cumberland v. Rhode Island Inter. Risk Mgmt. Trust, 99-0023 (2001)
Sup. Ct. R.I. · 2001 · confidence medium
Ray Realty, held that the actions of Town officials in altering referendums, passing invalid zoning ordinances and interfering with the underlying claimants constitutionally protected property interests were egregious and outrageous. 689 A.2d at 211.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Greene (3×) also: Cited "see"
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1997 · confidence medium
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 547 Pa. 137, 138-140 , 689 A.2d 211, 212 (1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Borrero
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1997 · confidence medium
The interests of justice therefore require that the trial court consider appellant’s post-sentencing motions on remand, nunc pro tunc. 5 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Widmer, — Pa. —, — -—, 689 A.2d 211, 212-13 (reversing Superi- or Court’s decision that defendant waived challenge to the weight of the evidence and remanding the case to the trial court to permit the defendant to file post-sentencing motions, nunc pro tunc).
discussed Cited "see" In the Int. of: F.Y., Appeal of: T.Y.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth Commommalth v. v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 Widmer,689 211 (Pa. (Pa. 1997), Commomi,ealth 1997), and Commonwealth v. • Brown, Brown, 648 648 A.2d A.24 1177, 1177, 1189-1192 1189-1192 (Pa. (Pa. 1994). 1994) V.
cited Cited "see" In the Int. of: M.B.-M., Appeal of: J.M.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth •v. Widmer, Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 211 (Pa. 1997), and (Pa. 1997), Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177 , 1189-1192 1189-1192 (Pa. (Pa. 1994). 1994) V.
discussed Cited "see" In the Int. of: C.R., Appeal of: P.S.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth • Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997), and Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189-1192 (Pa. 1994). 10 v. DISCUSSION A. The Trial Court Properly_Found that_DHS met its Burden by Clear and Convincing Evidence to Terminate the Parental Rights of Father Pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. $2511(a)01. (2). (5), and (8) Father alleges in his Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, that this Court erred when it found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Father's parental rights should be terminated.
cited Cited "see" Com. v. Nazeio, M.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re J.B., 106 A.3d 76 , 96–98 (Pa. 2014) (tracing the Rule’s promulgation in response to Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997)).
cited Cited "see" In the Int. of: N.M., Appeal of: J.M.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997), and Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189-1192 (Pa. 1994).
cited Cited "see" Com. v. Delvalle, W.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997), and Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189-1192 (Pa. 1994).
cited Cited "see" Com. v. Hicks, W.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997); Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189-92 (Pa. 1994).
discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Crespo, C. (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) 4 In an effort to avoid a finding of waiver, Crespo cites to Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997).
cited Cited "see" Com. v. Dixon, R.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211, 212 (Pa. 1997).
examined Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Erney (4×)
Pa. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Widmer, 446 Pa.Super. 408 , 667 A.2d 215 (1995), reversed on separate grounds 547 Pa. 137 , 689 A.2d 211 (1997); Commonwealth v. Price, 420 Pa.Super. 256 , 616 A.2d 681 (1992)
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Rogers (2×)
Pa. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Widmer, 547 Pa. 137 , 689 A.2d 211 (1997).
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Rogers (2×)
Pa. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Widmer, 547 Pa. 137 , 689 A.2d 211 (1997).
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Rogers (2×)
Pa. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Widmer, 547 Pa. 137 , 689 A.2d 211 (1997).
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Nichols
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1997 · signal: accord · confidence high
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Hackman, 424 Pa.Super. 526, 529 , 623 A.2d 350, 351 (1993); Commonwealth v. Byrd, 409 Pa.Super. 611, 613-16 , 598 A.2d 1011, 1012-14 (1991); accord Commonwealth v. Widmer, — Pa. —, 689 A.2d 211 (1997) (although Widmer failed to file post-sentence motion, Court overlooked technical waiver of weight of the evidence claim where trial court addressed it, found it meritorious but lacked jurisdiction to act upon it).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Com. v. Cup, A.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Commonwealth v. Washington, 825 A.2d 1264, 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“The present rule clearly requires that such a claim be raised initially by a motion to the trial court, and Appellant’s failure to do so compels us to find the issue waived.”); see also Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211, 213 (Pa. 1997) (Cappy, J., concurring) (“The problem, as Chief Justice Flaherty so aptly notes, is that challenges to the weight of the evidence can never be raised ‘before or during trial’; rather such challenges can only be raised after trial.”) (emphasis in original). -6- J-S29037-22 In…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Com. v. Goldstein, A. (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2021 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Widmer, 446 Pa. Super. 408, 422 , 667 A.2d 215, 222 (1995), rev'd on other grounds, 547 Pa. 137 , 689 A.2d 211 (1997).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re: M.B., Appeal of: PA State Police
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The Section 303 Certification reads as follows: APPLICATION FOR EXTENDED INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT (Footnote Continued) _______________________ timely-filed Rule 1925(b) statement, [the appellant] successfully preserved the issue for appellate review”); see also Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211, 212-213 (Pa. 1997) (holding: at a time when post-sentence motions were optional and a “void” existed in the rules as to how a litigant was to preserve a weight of the evidence challenge following a criminal trial, the Supreme Court held that the appellant did not waive his weight of the evidence …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re: M.B., Appeal of: PA State Police
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The Section 303 Certification reads as follows: APPLICATION FOR EXTENDED INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT (Footnote Continued) _______________________ timely-filed Rule 1925(b) statement, [the appellant] successfully preserved the issue for appellate review”); see also Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211, 212-213 (Pa. 1997) (holding: at a time when post-sentence motions were optional and a “void” existed in the rules as to how a litigant was to preserve a weight of the evidence challenge following a criminal trial, the Supreme Court held that the appellant did not waive his weight of the evidence …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Com. v. Orr, K.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; see also Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997) (appellate review of weight of evidence claim is limited to review of trial judge’s exercise of discretion).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re: M.B., Appeal of: PA State Police
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See In re Estate of Smaling, 80 A.3d 485, 490-493 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (holding that, given the optional nature of exceptions in Orphans’ Court proceedings, the appellant did not waive her weight of the evidence claim when she failed to file exceptions in the case – and, in fact, first raised the weight of the evidence claim in her Rule 1925(b) statement; we explained: “by their nature, [weight of the evidence claims] can only arise after the court issues its final decision in a matter. . . . [B]y raising her weight claim in a timely-filed Rule 1925(b) statement, [the appellant] s…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re: M.B., Appeal of: PA State Police
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The Section 303 Certification reads as follows: APPLICATION FOR EXTENDED INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES ACT OF 1976 (SECTION 303) _______________________ (Footnote Continued) evidence claim in her Rule 1925(b) statement; we explained: “by their nature, [weight of the evidence claims] can only arise after the court issues its final decision in a matter. . . . [B]y raising her weight claim in a timely-filed Rule 1925(b) statement, [the appellant] successfully preserved the issue for appellate review”); see also Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211, 212-213 (Pa. 1997) (holding…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Cooper (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Pa. R.A.P. 302; Petition of Piscanio, 235 Pa.Super. 490, 494-96 , 344 A.2d 658, 661 (1975) (finding that constitutional challenges to a denial of a private criminal complaint were waived by the affiant’s failure to raise the constitutional issues in the lower court); see also Commonwealth v. Widmer, 547 Pa. 137 , 689 A.2d 211 (1997) (explaining that, although post-sentence motions are no longer required to preserve issues in criminal matters, issues must still be raised initially in the lower court).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Ervin
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Commonwealth v. Widmer, — Pa. -, 689 A.2d 211 (1997) (Superior Court should not apply a hyper-technical standard which would lead to ignoring information contained in a trial court opinion filed pursuant to Rule 1925).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee,
v.
Barry WIDMER, Jr., Appellant
60 E.D. Appeal Docket 1996.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Feb 18, 1997.
689 A.2d 211
Joseph W. Chupein, Jr., Media, for Barry Widmer, Jr., Joseph J. Mittleman, William R. Toal, III, Media, for Commonwealth.
Flaherty, C.J., and Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro and Newman.
Cited by 68 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

FLAHERTY, Chief Justice.

Following his conviction and sentencing for rape, appellant, Barry Widmer, Jr., elected to forgo the optional post-sentence motion under recently amended Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 A.(3),† choosing the option of a notice of appeal to the Superior Court. In response to appellant’s concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, the trial court filed an opinion in support of the judgment of sentence pursuant to Pa.R.AP. 1925.

[*139] One of the issues raised on appeal was a challenge to the weight of the evidence. The trial court, in its Rule 1925 opinion, held unequivocally that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, but because appellant had not filed a post-sentence motion for a new trial, the appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to act on the challenge to the weight of the evidence:

This Court’s sense of justice was indeed shocked. Defendant, by taking a direct appeal, has deprived this court of the opportunity to act on the weight of the evidence question, and left this court with only the ability to express its view on this issue by addressing it in response to the Defendant’s concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. Although under the new rules governing appellate procedure, a defendant may bypass the Court of Common Pleas and appeal directly to Superior Court, it is important that the Superior Court be aware of the fact that if Mr. Widmer had moved for a new trial based upon the weight of the evidence, this Court most certainly would have granted his motion.

Slip op., January 27, 1995, at 29. The Superior Court, relying on Commonwealth v. Hodge, 441 Pa.Super. 653, 658 A.2d 386 (1995), held that a challenge to the weight of the evidence must first be raised in the trial court and that failure to do so constituted a waiver of the claim. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 446 Pa.Super. 408, 421, 667 A.2d 215, 221 (1995).

While it is correct, as stated in Hodge, supra, that a challenge to the weight of the evidence must be addressed in the first instance by the trial court, Hodge, 441 Pa.Super. at 658-60, 658 A.2d at 388-89, we granted allocatur to address the effect of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 B.(l)(c) in this context, a question of first impression in this court.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 B.(l)(c) states: “Issues raised before or during trial shall be deemed preserved for appeal whether or not the defendant elects to file a post-sentence motion on those issues.” The issue under consideration — the weight of the evidence — is an exceptional issue which is unlikely to be preserved for appeal without the filing of a post-sentence[*140] motion. Thus, the option of forgoing a post-sentence motion and proceeding directly to the Superior Court, as permitted by Rule 1410, may not preserve the issue for appeal. Nevertheless, this case differs from Hodge in that the trial court had reviewed the weight of the evidence claim prior to the Superi- or Court’s review, and clearly held that the verdict was in fact contrary to the weight of the evidence. Therefore, the precept in Commonwealth v. Brown, 538 Pa. 410, 435-39, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189-91 (1994), that a weight of the evidence claim must be addressed in the first instance by the trial court has been met. There was no need for the Superior Court to review a cold record and make an initial determination concerning the weight of the evidence, which was the problem underlying the Brown decision. That being the case, it was error for the Superior Court to apply Hodge in this case to rule that appellant’s failure to file a post-sentence motion for a new trial had the effect of waiving his claim that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Under these circumstances, the Superior Court should have remanded the case to the trial court rather than holding that appellant had waived this claim.

We hold that appellant must be permitted to file a motion for a new trial nunc pro tunc challenging the weight of the evidence pursuant to Rule 1410 B.(l)(a)(iv).

Judgment of Superior Court reversed and case remanded to the trial court to permit appellant to file a motion for a new trial nunc pro tunc challenging the weight of the evidence.

Rule 1410 adopted March 22, 1993 and amended December 17, 1993, effective as to cases in which the determination of guilt occurs on or after January 1, 1994.

Concurrence

CAPPY, Justice,

concurring.

I agree with the result reached by the Majority because fairness dictates that the instant case be remanded to the trial court and Appellant permitted to file a motion for a new trial nunc pro tunc challenging the weight of the evidence. However, given the clear oversight in new Rule 1410 respecting weight of the evidence claims, I would go further and specifically direct that the Criminal Rules Committee amend Rule 1410 as soon as practical to explicitly provide for weight of the evidence challenges.

[*141] As Chief Justice Flaherty notes, new rule 1410 allows a defendant the option of filing post-trial motions or simply filing a direct appeal. Previously, only those issues raised in post-trial motions were deemed preserved for appeal and thus, a defendant was required to file post-trial motions. New Rule 1410 achieves its objective of permitting the by-passing of post-trial motions, by specifically stating that “[ijssues raised before or during trial will now be deemed preserved for appeal whether or not the defendant elects to file a post-sentence motion on those issues.” The problem, as Chief Justice Flaherty so aptly notes, is that challenges to the weight of the evidence can never be raised “before or during trial”; rather such challenges can only be raised after trial. Thus, there is a clear void in new rule 1410; a void which I believe was unintentional and one which the Criminal Rules Committee must address. The fact that the trial court in the instant case addressed the challenge to the weight of the evidence in its opinion filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.1925 simply does not cure the deficiency in new rule 1410 since there likely will be times where, under similar circumstances, the trial court will either review such a challenge in its rule 1925 opinion in a cursory fashion or even fail to address such a challenge at all. Certainly, given the language of rule 1410 as it now stands, a defendant caught in those circumstances should not be denied his or her right to challenge the weight of the evidence any more than the defendant in the instant matter should. At the very least, Rule 1410 should specifically state that challenges to the weight of the evidence must be raised first in the trial court or else those challenges will be deemed waived.

Accordingly, in addition to ordering a remand here, I would direct that the Criminal Rules Committee revise Rule 1410 posthaste.