author: BECK, Judge: KELLY, Judge,

text:
    561 A.2d 335
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Lawrence JACKSON, Appellant.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted Dec. 7, 1988.
    Filed June 27, 1989.

      George H. Newman, Philadelphia, for appellant.
    Donna G. Zucker, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Com., appellee.

      Before CIRILLO, President Judge, and BECK and KELLY, JJ.
   BECK, Judge:

The principal issue is whether a defendant may be impeached with a prior criminal conviction where the defendant was originally sentenced, imprisoned, and paroled over ten years before trial, but where the defendant later violated parole and was recommitted to serve the remainder of his original sentence within ten years of trial. The trial court held that under Commonwealth v. Randall, 515 Pa. 410, 528 A.2d 1326 (1987), the prior criminal conviction could be admitted to impeach the defendant if he testified on his own behalf. We agree with the conclusion of the trial court.

The relevant facts are not in dispute. In January, 1974, Lawrence Jackson was sentenced to four to ten years imprisonment for a robbery he had committed the year before. In June, 1976, he was placed on parole. In 1981, he violated parole by committing auto theft. As a result of this violation, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole ordered Jackson recommitted for his robbery offense. In 1983 and 1984, he served an additional fifteen months in prison for the robbery.

On June 28, 1986, Jackson and a number of other men were involved in an altercation during which one Ronald Collins was fatally stabbed. Jackson was charged with murder, conspiracy, and possessing an instrument of crime. Prior to trial, Jackson sought a court order prohibiting the prosecution from impeaching his credibility with the robbery conviction when he testified at trial. The trial court denied this request, and Jackson then decided not to take the witness stand. On February 8, 1988, a jury convicted Jackson of conspiracy and possessing an instrument of crime and acquitted Jackson of murder. Post-verdict motions were denied, and on May 11, 1988, Jackson was sentenced to five to ten years imprisonment.

On appeal from his judgment of sentence, Jackson raises five issues. He claims: 1) the trial court erred by ruling that he could be impeached with the robbery conviction; 2) there was insufficient evidence of conspiracy and possessing an instrument of crime; 3) the trial court erred by grading the conspiracy count as a felony rather than as a misdemeanor; 4) the trial court gave an inaccurate jury charge on accomplice liability; and 5) the trial court erred by denying a motion for mistrial based upon the prosecutor’s racially discriminatory exercise of peremptory challenges. We find that each of these claims is without merit.

We shall first review the trial court’s ruling that appellant could be impeached with his prior conviction for robbery. Robbery is deemed to be a crime that involves dishonesty. Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484, 489, 533 A.2d 120, 123 (1987); Commonwealth v. Dombrauskas, 274 Pa.Super. 452, 461, 418 A.2d 493, 498 (1980). For many years, the courts of this Commonwealth applied a five part test in order to determine whether crimes involving dishonesty or false statement could be used for impeachment purposes. This test was derived from the the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decisions in Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554, 307 A.2d 255 (1973) and Commonwealth v. Roots, 482 Pa. 33, 393 A.2d 364 (1978). Under the Bighum/Roots doctrine, the trial court was directed to consider the following factors when determining the admissibility of a prior conviction:

1) the degree to which the commission of the prior offense reflects upon the veracity of the defendant-witness;
2) the likelihood, in view of the nature and extent of the prior record, that it would have a greater tendency to smear the character of the defendant and suggest a propensity to commit the crime for which he stands charged, rather than provide a legitimate reason for discrediting him as an untruthful person; 3) the age and circumstances of the defendant; 4) the strength of the prosecution’s case and the prosecution’s need to resort to this evidence as compared with the availability to the defense of other witnesses through which its version of the events surrounding the incident can be presented; and 5) the existence of alternative means of attacking the defendant’s credibility.

Roots, 482 Pa. at 39-40, 393 A.2d at 367 (footnote omitted).

In time, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reconsidered the Bighum/Roots doctrine and limited its application. In Commonwealth v. Randall, 515 Pa. 410, 528 A.2d 1326 (1987), Justice McDermott wrote for the Court majority that “the criteria has proven less than exact, and has done more to engender appeals than to guide courts and litigants.” Id., 515 Pa. at 414, 528 A.2d at 1328. Justice McDermott further noted that under Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, impeachment with a prior offense that implicates dishonesty is permissible where the witness has served time for the offense within ten years of his appearance at trial. The Randall Court concluded:

[Wjhile we do not adopt the federal rule per se we do modify our current rule to the following extent: evidence of prior convictions can be introduced for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness if the conviction was for an offense involving dishonesty or false statement, and the date of conviction or the last day of confinement is within ten years of the trial date. If a period greater than ten years has expired the presiding judge must determine whether the value of the evidence substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.

Id., 515 Pa. at 415, 528 A.2d at 1329.

Appellant argues that the trial court misinterpreted Randall when it ruled that he could be impeached with his robbery conviction. Initially, we must decide whether appellant has standing to raise this issue. After receiving an unfavorable ruling on the impeachment question, appellant opted not to testify at trial. In Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984), the United States Supreme Court held that under Federal Rule of Evidence 609 a defendant cannot challenge a ruling authorizing his impeachment unless he takes the stand and is impeached. The Commonwealth urges us to dismiss appellant’s claim on the basis of Luce. However, in Commonwealth v. Richardson, 347 Pa.Super. 564, 500 A.2d 1200 (1985), a panel of the Superior Court concluded that Luce is inconsistent with Pennsylvania law. Although Richardson was decided prior to Randall, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was careful to note in Randall that it did not adopt Rule 609 per se. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court modified existing law only to the extent that evidence of prior crimes involving dishonest or false statement may now be used for impeachment if the defendant served time for the crime within ten years of trial. Nothing in Randall has undermined the precedential value of Richardson. Thus, under Richardson, appellant may challenge the trial court’s impeachment ruling even though he did not testify at trial.

Appellant claims that the trial court should have weighed the evidentiary value of his robbery conviction against its prejudicial effect before deciding whether he was subject to impeachment. He notes that he was paroled for the robbery offense in 1976 — over ten years before his 1988 trial. However, the crucial date for impeachment purposes is not when a defendant was initially paroled for an offense but when a defendant was last imprisoned for an offense. Appellant was recommitted as a parole violator in 1983. “Recommitment is an administrative determination that the parolee should be reentered to serve all or part of the unexpired term of his original sentence.” Rivenbark v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 509 Pa. 248, 253, 501 A.2d 1110, 1113 (1985) (footnote omitted). Thus, appellant served time for the robbery sentence within ten years of trial. Accordingly, under Randall, it was not necessary for the trial court to engage in a case specific balancing inquiry.

We interpret Randall as providing a bright-line rule that a defendant may be impeached with a crime involving dishonesty for which he has been imprisoned within ten years of trial regardless of whether his last period of imprisonment for that crime was imposed at the original sentencing hearing or at a hearing on the revocation of parole. In either case, the defendant’s veracity may be called into question. The probative value of the conviction has not been eroded simply because the defendant was paroled over a decade before trial. If a defendant is recommitted as a parole violator, he has twice breached society’s trust, once when he committed the original crime and again when he violated the terms of parole. The parole violation tends to indicate that the defendant was never successfully rehabilitated following his commission of the offense that cast doubt on his willingness to tell the truth. Moreover, we see no reason why a parole violator should be shielded from cross-examination while a defendant who has paid his debt to society by serving the full-length of his maximum sentence within ten years of trial should-be subject to impeachment.

We further note that this reading of Randall is in accord with the case law interpreting Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The federal courts have repeatedly held that the date of release following a recommitment for a parole or probation violation should be used to calculate whether imprisonment for an offense falls within the ten year period for impeachment. United States v. Gray, 852 F.2d 136 (4th Cir.1988) (parole violation); United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 822, 106 S.Ct. 75, 88 L.Ed.2d 61 (1985) (probation violation); United States v. Brewer, 451 F.Supp. 50 (E.D. Tenn.1978) (parole violation).

Appellant emphasizes that in McClintock, the Ninth Circuit stated that a trial court might have discretion to bar impeachment if a violation bears little relation to the offense for which the defendant was originally sentenced. Appellant then asserts that his parole violation (committing auto theft) was not similar to his original crime (robbery). We are not persuaded by this argument. The language in McClintock upon which appellant relies is obiter dictum. Nothing in Gray or Brewer lends support to the notion that impeachment is not permitted unless the parole violation and the original crime are closely related offenses. More: over, in Commonwealth v. Randall, supra, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stressed the need for a clear and predictable rule of impeachment that would guide courts and litigants. We therefore hold that a trial court may properly allow a defendant to be impeached with a crime involving dishonesty or false statement where the defendant was imprisoned for that crime within ten years of trial following recommitment as a parole violator.

Appellant next argues that there is insufficient evidence of conspiracy or possessing an instrument of crime or conspiracy. His central argument is that since the jury acquitted him on the murder charge, we must disregard all of the evidence which supports the murder charge, and that without this evidence the jury’s verdict of guilt on the lesser charges cannot be sustained. The flaw in this argument is that “an acquittal cannot be interpreted as a specific finding in relation to some of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 379 Pa.Super. 589, 592, 550 A.2d 807, 809 (1988) (en banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. Carter, 444 Pa. 405, 408, 282 A.2d 375, 376 (1971)). The test for the sufficiency of the evidence of any particular crime is whether viewing all of the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the jury could reasonably conclude that each element of that crime was established beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 376 Pa.Super. 188, 191, 545 A.2d 890, 892 (1988). In this case, there clearly was sufficient evidence of possessing an instrument of crime and conspiracy. The fact that the jury convicted appellant of these charges and acquitted appellant of murder means at most that the jury verdicts were inconsistent. It has long been the law in Pennsylvania that the inconsistency of verdicts in a criminal case does not provide a basis for relief. Commonwealth v. Trill, 374 Pa.Super. 549, 559, 543 A.2d 1106, 1111 (1988).

Appellant next alleges that the trial court erred by grading his conspiracy conviction as a felony. Appellant was originally charged on the bill of information with conspiracy to commit “murder and/or aggravated assault”. At trial, however, the Commonwealth did not pursue the theory that appellant conspired to commit aggravated assault and the court charged the jury only as to conspiracy to commit murder. The jury verdict found appellant guilty of “conspiracy”. Appellant now claims that it is impossible to tell whether the jury intended to convict appellant of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault or of conspiracy to commit murder and that therefore we must err in his favor and assume that he was convicted of only the lowest grade of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, a misdemean- or. This argument is frivolous. The jury clearly intended to convict appellant of conspiracy to commit murder since that was the offense discussed in the jury charge. Therefore, the conspiracy conviction must be graded as a felony.

Appellant next contends that the trial court gave a misleading charge on accomplice liability which indicated that presence at the scene of a crime will support a finding of guilt. Viewing the charge as a whole, we find that the court adequately conveyed to the jury that mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish criminal culpability.

Finally, appellant argues that the Commonwealth exercised peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner. In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant is entitled to relief if he establishes a prima facie case of racial discrimination which is not successfully rebutted by the Commonwealth. A prima facie case of discrimination consists of three elements: 1) the defendant’s membership in a cognizable racial group; 2) the prosecutor’s use of peremptory strikes to exclude members of that group; and 3) an inference arising from the totality of the circumstances that the prosecutor used the strikes to exclude venirepersons on account of race. See Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 521 Pa. 188, 197-198, 555 A.2d 846, 850 (1989). The trial court’s finding as to the presence or absence of a prima facie case is ordinarily entitled to deference by an appellate court. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-97, 106 S.Ct. at 1722-1728.

In the instant case, appellant bases his racial discrimination claim solely on the fact that he is black and that the prosecutor used five of his seven peremptory challenges to strike black venirepersons. Appellant does not contest the Commonwealth’s assertion that: 1) there was no evidence of discriminatory intent in any statement, question, or mannerism of the prosecutor during voir dire; 2) the prosecutor struck one white venireperson and the prosecutor never exercised his final peremptory challenge; 3) five blacks were seated on the trial jury; and 4) the victim of the appellant’s crime was black, most of the Commonwealth’s witnesses were black, and the Commonwealth’s case did not implicate any racial issues. There is no per se rule that a prima facie case of discrimination exists whenever the prosecutor has directed most of his peremptory challenges at black individuals. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, supra; Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, 519 Pa. 236, 546 A.2d 1101 (1988). Under the facts of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

KELLY, J., files a concurring statement.

KELLY, Judge,

concurring:

I join Judge Beck’s well reasoned opinion. As narrowly constructed by our Supreme Court, the 10-year rule announced in Commonwealth v. Randall, 515 Pa. 410, 528 A.2d 1326 (1987), appears to apply only with respect to release from confinement on the prior crimen falsi offense, and not to release from confinement on subsequent noncrimen falsi offenses. Hence, the fine distinction drawn in this case is appropriate and prudent.

More generally speaking, however, I understand the 10 year rule announced in Randall to be an expression of a conclusion that the passage of 10 years without repetition of criminally deceptive conduct involves sufficient attenuation of the relevance of evidence of a prior conviction for a crimen falsi offense to the issue of credibility to warrant a balancing test for admissibility, rather than a per se rule of admissibility. Though Randall does not discuss the impact which subsequent incarceration for a non-crimen falsi offense would have on the balance between relevance and potential prejudice, I submit that evidence of a prior crimen falsi conviction would remain highly relevant despite its age, if the defendant had been incarcerated and thus rendered incapable of repeating the criminally deceptive act during the time between the prior offense and the current trial.

I believe it is only the passage of a 10 year period of honest law abiding conduct at liberty which may reasonably be deemed to demonstrate reformation, and thereby dissipate the probative weight of evidence of prior criminally deceptive acts on the issue of credibility. A convict who had no opportunity to demonstrate reformation should not by mere passage of time be presumed to have reformed. Professor Alschuler has cogently observed in a slightly different context:

To probe a person’s psyche and predict his future behavior is always an awesome task, and the optimistic belief that one can discern a person’s general propensity for law observance from his regimented conduct in a prison now seems remarkably naive.

Alschuler, Sentencing Reform and Prosecutorial Power, 126 U.Pa.L.Rev. 550, 552, (1978). Likewise it would seem to me remarkably naive to consider appellant’s non-repetition of a criminally deceptive conduct during confinement for any reason, evidence of reformation thereby dissipating the unquestionable relevance of appellant’s prior criminally deceptive conduct to the issue of his credibility.

Consequently, even if I were to assume, arguendo, that the distinction drawn by Judge Beck regarding the effect of appellant’s recommittal on the prior crimen falsi conviction (for non-crimen falsi parole violations) on the 10 year rule was neither anticipated nor intended by our Supreme Court in its Randall opinion, I would nonetheless find the evidence properly admissible applying the residual Roots/Big-hum balancing test. Though relatively dated, the evidence of appellant’s prior crimen falsi conviction remained highly probative on the issue of his credibility in this case. See Commonwealth v. Osborn, 364 Pa.Super. 505, 508-16, 528 A.2d 623, 625-28.(1987) (16 year old perjury conviction was properly admissible under Roots/Bighum test); Commonwealth v. Stinnett, 356 Pa.Super. 83, 514 A.2d 154 (1986) (applying the Roots/Bighum test); Commonwealth v. Duffy, 355 Pa.Super. 145, 512 A.2d 1253 (1986) (same); Commonwealth v. Bailey, 354 Pa.Super. 51, 511 A.2d 180 (1986) (same).

      . Federal Rule of Evidence 609 provides in relevant part:
      (a) General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established by public record during cross-examination but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.
      (b) Time Limit. Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date, unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. However, evidence of a conviction more than 10 years old as calculated herein, is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence.

      . The Randall Court observed that the Bighum/Roots standard would continue to apply to circumstances where the Commonwealth seeks to impeach a defendant with crimes for which he was last imprisoned over ten years before trial.

      . See also Commonwealth v. Gordon, 355 Pa.Super. 25, 28 n. 1, 512 A.2d 1191, 1192 n. 1 (1986) and Commonwealth v. Bailey, 354 Pa.Suppr. 51, 53, 511 A.2d 180, 182 n. 1 (1986) (following Richardson).

      . In Gray, the Fourth Circuit did not describe the crime which triggered revocation of parole; apparently, the court viewed the nature of the parole violation as irrelevant. In Brewer, the defendant was originally sentenced for kidnapping and parole was revoked after the defendant committed rape, aggravated assault, and assault with a deadly weapon.

      . Appellant also challenges the pretrial ruling permitting impeachment of a prospective witness for the defense. This prospective witness was convicted and sentenced for robbery, was released on probation over ten years before trial, violated probation by committing a theft, and was recommitted to serve his original robbery sentence within ten years of trial. The trial courts’ ruling as to this prospective witness was correct for the same reasons that the trial court's ruling as to the appellant was correct. “[T]he same rules apply for impeaching a witness as for impeaching a defendant.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 371 Pa.Super. 509, 513, 538 A.2d 557, 559 (1988). Furthermore, the same rules apply for impeachment following revocation of probation as apply for impeachment following revocation of parole. See McClintock, 748 F.2d at 1288.

      . The information was in technical violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 228 which states that each offense should be listed in a separate count. See Commonwealth v. Hill, 340 Pa.Super. 155, 165 n. 6, 489 A.2d 889, 894 n. 6 (1985).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: CIRILLO, President Judge:

license: Public Domain

text:
    561 A.2d 745
    Richard REICHERT, an Individual, and Jean Reichert, His Wife, Appellants, v. TRW, INC. CUTTING TOOLS DIVISION; Fullerton Tool Company, Division of Curry Industries; Bassett Rotary Tool Company; Cleveland Cutting Tools, Incorporated; Falcon Tool Company, Inc.; Sandvik, Inc.; Greenleaf Corporation; Adamas Corporation; Weldon Tool Company; ITW Drills and End Mills, a Division of Illinois Tool Works, Inc.; Colt Industries, Fastcut Tool Operation; Union Twist Drill, a Division of Litton Industrial Products, Inc.; Colt Industries, Crucible Specialty Metal Division; Do All Company; Conical Tool Company; Paul R. Gresswein & Co., Inc.; Latrobe Steel Company; NGK Metals, Formerly the Berylium Corporation; General Electric Company (Carboloy Systems Department); Wolverine Cutter Co.; Newcomer Products Inc.; TRW, Inc., Drill and End Mill Division and Atrax Company; and S.G.S. Tool Company. (Two Cases)
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued March 2, 1989.
    Filed June 22, 1989.
    Reargument Denied Aug. 4, 1989.

      Robert L. Ceisler, Washington, for Reichert, appellants (at 307 and 627).
    Richard B. Tucker, III, Pittsburgh, for Falcon Tool, appellee (at 307 and 627).
    James S. Ehrman, Pittsburgh, for Adamas Corp., appellee (at 307 and 627).
    Before CIRILLO, President Judge, and BROSKY and TAMILIA, JJ.
   CIRILLO, President Judge:

Appellants, Richard and Jean Reichert, appeal from an order entered on December 30, 1987, by the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, striking the default judgment entered against Adamas Carbide Corporation [hereinafter Adamas]. The Reicherts also appeal from an order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County on March 3,1987, granting the petition of appellee Falcon Tool Co., Inc. [hereinafter Falcon] to strike the default judgment entered against it. Pursuant to the agreement of counsel, the Reicherts’ appeals from these orders have been consolidated.

The events leading up to this consolidated appeal can be summarized as follows. On June 27, 1986, Richard and Jean Reichert filed a complaint against various defendants, including the appellants Adamas and Falcon, seeking to recover for injuries allegedly suffered by Mr. Reichert as a result of his having been exposed to tungsten, carbide, tungsten carbide, cobalt, and specialty steels which were present in the products sold, manufactured, or distributed by the defendants.

In October of 1986, the Reicherts filed a praecipe to have their complaint reinstated and instructed the Erie County Sheriffs Office to serve the complaint on both Adamas and Falcon by certified mail. The sheriffs service of process report on Adamas indicates that the Sheriffs Office followed the Reicherts’ instructions; the complaint was sent to Adamas by certified mail on October 3, 1986. The address to which the complaint was sent is listed as 666 Boyce Road, Kennilworth, New Jersey. The return receipt accompanying the complaint was signed on October 6, 1986, by a Ray Sachlantz. His signature appears on the line marked “Signature — Addressee.”

The sheriff’s service of process report on Falcon also indicates that the Sheriffs Office complied with the Reicherts’ request to serve their complaint on Falcon. Again, the report shows that the complaint was sent to Falcon by certified mail on October 3, 1986, and the return receipt reflects that the complaint was received on October 6,1986. The signature appearing on the receipt is that of an employee of Falcon; his signature appears on the line marked “Signature — Addressee.”

Neither Adamas nor Falcon responded when served with the Reicherts’ complaint. The Reicherts, consequently, sent both corporations a notice of default for failure to answer their complaint. The notice was sent to Adamas on January 22, 1987, and to Falcon on March 9, 1987. As with the complaint, neither corporation responded to the notice. The Reicherts, therefore, filed a praecipe for judgment against both corporations and default judgments were entered against them. The default judgment against Adamas was entered on February 5, 1987; the default judgment against Falcon was entered on March 26, 1987.

Prior to the dates upon which the default judgments were entered against Adamas and Falcon, one of the defendants not involved in this appeal filed preliminary objections to the Reicherts’ complaint, alleging, inter alia, that the complaint was vague and ambiguous and that it failed to inform the defendants of the nature of the claims asserted against them. The trial court agreed and, on February 3, 1987, entered an order directing the Reicherts to file a more specific pleading within seventy-five days. The Reicherts filed their amended complaint on March 19, 1987, seven days before the default judgment was entered against Falcon. The Reicherts did not, however, serve the complaint on Falcon; in addition, they did not endorse the complaint with a notice to plead.

Thereafter, Adamas became aware of the Reicherts’ suit. On June 16, 1987, Adamas filed a petition to open and/or strike the default judgment which had been entered against it. The trial court then issued a rule upon the Reicherts to show why Adamas’s petition should not be granted. They filed their answer to Adamas’s petition and the court’s rule, to which Adamas, in turn, filed its reply. Adamas had depositions taken in support of its petition. In addition, the corporation filed an extensive affidavit containing all the names and signatures of its employees as of October 6, 1986, the date on which the complaint was allegedly received and signed for by one of its employees.

A hearing on Adamas’s petition was held by the trial court after which the court concluded that rule 424 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires service on foreign corporations such as Adamas to be made by hand delivery. Based on this determination, the trial court filed an order on December 30, 1987, striking the judgment entered against Adamas. The Reicherts filed an appeal from this order.

Falcon also eventually became aware of the suit commenced by the Reicherts, and, on October 21, 1987, filed a petition to strike and/or open the default judgment entered against it. After a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be stricken or opened was issued upon the Reicherts, they filed a response to Falcon’s petition. Falcon then filed an amended petition and an answer raising new matter to which the Reicherts dutifully responded. Depositions were subsequently taken. Thereafter, on March 3, 1988, the court entered an order and opinion granting Falcon’s petition to strike the default judgment entered against it. In the opinion, the court explained that its reasons for granting Falcon’s petition were twofold: (1) Falcon was not served with the Reicherts’ original complaint in conformance with Pa.R.C.P. 424; and (2) Falcon had not been served with the Reicherts’ amended complaint as required by Pa.R.C.P. 440. Shortly after the court entered its order granting Falcon’s petition, the Reicherts filed an appeal from it. This appeal was then consolidated with the previous appeal filed by the Reicherts contesting the trial court’s order striking the default judgment entered against Adamas.

On appeal, the following issues are raised for our review: (1) did the trial court err in striking the judgments entered against Adamas and Falcon on the basis that rule 424 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure requires service of process on foreign corporations to be made by hand delivery; and, if so, (2) did the trial court also err in striking the judgment entered against Falcon on the additional basis that the Reicherts failed to serve Falcon with a copy of their amended complaint.

Initially, we note that in reviewing a decision of a trial court to strike a judgment, an appellate court will reverse the decision of the trial court only for a manifest abuse of discretion or an error of law. Bittenbender v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 362 Pa.Super. 243, 248, 523 A.2d 1173, 1176 (1987), allocatur denied, 517 Pa. 602, 536 A.2d 1327 (1987). A motion to strike a judgment is in the nature of a demurrer directed to defects in the record. Id.; National Recovery Systems v. Monaghan, 322 Pa.Super. 183, 188, 469 A.2d 244, 246 (1983). Such a motion may be granted only when a fatal defect appears on the face of the record. Parliament Industries v. William H. Vaughan & Co., 501 Pa. 1, 8, 459 A.2d 720, 724 (1983). If the record at the time the judgment was entered was self-sustaining, the judgment cannot be stricken. Monaghan, supra, 322 Pa.Superior Ct. at 188, 469 A.2d at 246. See also 16 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d § 91:104, at 555-57 (1988).

Resolution of the first issue which the Reicherts have presented for our review requires that we address an issue of first impression, namely, whether service on foreign corporations may be made by certified mail under the present rules of civil procedure governing service of process. This issue arises because there is an apparent conflict between two of the rules, specifically rule 404 and rule 424. While rule 404 permits service outside the Commonwealth to be made by certified mail, rule 424 appears to require service on corporations, both domestic and foreign, to be made by hand delivery.

Rule 404, entitled “Service Outside the Commonwealth,” provides, in pertinent part:

Original process shall be served outside the Commonwealth within ninety days of the issuance of the writ or the filing of the complaint or the reissuance of the reinstatement thereof:
(2) by any competent adult by mail in the manner provided by Rule 403____

Pa.R.C.P. No. 404, 42 Pa.C.S. (1987). Rule 403, to which rule 404 refers, reads:

If a rule of civil procedure authorizes original process to be served by mail, a copy of the process shall be mailed to the defendant or his authorized agent. Service is complete upon delivery of the mail____

Pa.R.C.P. No. 403, 42 Pa.C.S. (1987). Finally, rule 424, which bears the caption “Corporations and Similar Entities,” states:

Service of original process upon a corporation or similar entity shall be made by handing a copy to any of the following persons provided the person served is not a plaintiff in the action:
(1) an executive officer, partner or trustee of the corporation or similar entity, or
(2) the manager, clerk or other person for the time being in charge of any regular place of business or activity of the corporation or similar entity, or
(3) an agent authorized by the corporation or similar entity in writing to receive service of process for it.

Pa.R.C.P. No. 424, Pa.C.S. (1987).

Resolving the apparent conflict between rule 404 and rule 424, the trial court interpreted rule 424 as requiring service upon all corporations to be made by hand delivery and rule 404 as being inapplicable to foreign corporations. In adopting this view of these rules, the trial court relied on the general rule of construction that specific rules are to given effect over general ones. See Pa.R.C.P. 132 (where conflict between two provisions is irreconcilable, the particular provision prevails over the general one).

Rules 400 through 441 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure presently govern service of process. These rules are the product of an effort to consolidate the rules of service into a single chapter of the Rules of Civil Procedure. In effectuating this revision in the rules, the old rules governing service, which were scattered throughout various chapters, were rescinded. Most of these old rules were replaced by one of the rules in the new consolidated chapter. However, because some of the old rules and sections of rules were repetitive, a number of them were not replaced. See Explanatory Comment, preceding Pa.R.C.P. 400, 42 Pa.C.S. (1987) (“These amendments result in a net reduction of nine entire rules of civil procedure and many other subdivisions of rules governing service”). The rules in the new consolidated chapter were drafted by the Civil. Procedural Rules Committee and later adopted and promulgated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pursuant to the power vested in it by our state constitution. See Pa. Const, art. 5, § 10 (1969).

Prior to the consolidation of the rules, service upon a foreign corporation could be made by certified mail pursuant to rules 2180(c)(2) and 2079(c)(3). Section (c)(2) of rule 2180 stated:

(c) Outside the Commonwealth, the plaintiff shall have the right of service within ninety days after the issuance of the writ or the filing of the complaint or the reissuance of reinstatement thereof:
(2) in the manner provided by Rule 2079(c)(2), (3), (4) or (5)....

Pa.R.C.P. 2180(c)(2) (rescinded June 20, 1985, effective January 1, 1986). Rule 2079(c)(3) provided:

(c) Outside the Commonwealth, the plaintiff shall have the right of service within ninety days after the issuance of the writ or the filing of the complaint or the reissuance or reinstatement thereof
(3) by registered mail sent by the plaintiff, the plaintiffs attorney or any competent adult addressed to the last known address of the defendant and requiring a receipt returned by the post office.

Pa.R.C.P. 2079(c)(3) (rescinded June 20, 1985, effective January 1, 1986). With the advent of the new chapter of consolidated rules, rules 2180 and 2079 were rescinded. Rule 2180 now refers readers to rule 424; rule 2079 directs individuals to rule 404.

The Reicherts strenuously argue that subsections (b) through (d) of rule 2180 were not specifically rescinded when the new consolidated rules were enacted. They contend that only subsection (a) of rule 2180 was rescinded. While this section of the rule, they claim, was replaced by rule 424, the other sections of rule 2180 were not. Consequently, they state, service upon a foreign corporation by mail, as authorized by subsection (c) of rule 2180, continues to be a viable method of service. They add credence to this argument by citing to the “Disposition of Rescinded Rules” table, which is set out immediately preceding the present rules pertaining to service of process. This table shows that while many of the former rules of civil procedure dealing with service of process were replaced by rules in the 400 series, subsections (b) through (d) of rule 2180 were not specifically replaced by any of the new consolidated rules. Fortifying their position further, the Reicherts point out that the Explanatory Comment preceding the new consolidated rules reveals that the new rules governing service were not intended to abolish the option of service by mail in situations where it had previously existed.

After careful consideration, we conclude that the Reicherts’ assertions regarding rules 2180 and 424 are partially correct. While we disagree with their contention that subsections (b) through (d) of rule 2180 were not specifically rescinded, we agree with their statement that rule 424 was not intended to disallow service upon foreign corporations by certified mail.

Even the briefest glance at rule 2180, as it is presently set forth in the Rules of Civil Procedure, dispels any doubt that each and every subsection of rule 2180 was not rescinded. The rule states in no uncertain terms that it was “[Rescinded June 20, 1985,” and that the rescission took effect on January 1, 1986. Moreover, because the new consolidated chapter, consisting of rules 400 thru 441, was intended to merge all the rules of service into one chapter, it is only logical to conclude that the old rules of service were rescinded in their entirety. Any other conclusion would frustrate the purpose of consolidating the rules into one chapter.

We turn our attention now to the Reicherts’ argument that rule 424 was not intended to eradicate the option of serving foreign corporations by certified mail. As we stated previously, we find this position persuasive. Although the language of rule 424 appears to require service upon a foreign corporation to be made by hand delivery; we do not believe that this was the intent of the supreme court. Rule 127 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, entitled “Construction of Rules. Intent of Supreme Court Controls,” provides, in pertinent part:

When the words of a rule are not explicit, the intention of the Supreme Court may be ascertained by considering, among other matters (1) the occasion and necessity for the rule; (2) the circumstances under which it was promulgated; (3) the mischief to be remedied; (4) the object to be attained; (5) the prior practice, if any, including other rules and Acts of Assembly upon the same or similar subjects; (6) the consequences of a particular interpretion; (7) the contemporaneous history of the rule; and (8) the practice followed under the rule.

Pa.R.C.P. 127(c), 42 Pa.C.S. (1987). Applying this rule of construction to the instant matter, we conclude that the drafters intended rule 424 to simply delineate those individuals who may be served by hand delivery on behalf of a corporation should that manner of delivery be chosen by the plaintiff

If we were to embrace the trial court’s interpretation of rule 424, we would have to assume that the supreme court intended service upon foreign corporations to be made only by hand delivery. We simply cannot believe that the court intended such a result. See Pa.R.C.P. 128(a), 42 Pa.C.S. (1987) (in promulgating rules, supreme court does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable). The benefit to be obtained from restricting service on foreign corporations to hand delivery would be substantially outweighed by the burden it would place on the residents of this Commonwealth. While there would be fewer disputes over whether service was achieved, the restriction would impede the ability of our residents to commence actions against corporations which are residents of other states. The cost incurred and the inconvenience involved in achieving service would increase significantly.

Moreover, placing such a narrow restriction on service of foreign corporations would adversely affect the legislature’s efforts to facilitate actions by Pennsylvania residents to recover for harm caused to them by foreign corporations. See Barber v. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, 317 Pa.Super. 285, 290, 464 A.2d 323, 326 (1983) (“The so-called ‘long-arm’ jurisdictional statutes were amended by our legislature in 1972, and such amendments were clearly intended to liberalize a somewhat restrictive Pennsylvania jurisdictional view which existed prior to that time.”); Gulentz v. Fosdick, 320 Pa.Super. 38, 43, 466 A.2d 1049, 1052 (1983) (“Pennsylvania has long evidenced an interest in extending in personam jurisdiction over foreign corporations doing business within its boundaries, for acts occurring outside the state.”); Kieser v. Lit Brothers, 275 Pa.Super. 508, 511, 419 A.2d 16, 17 (1980) (legislative intent of the long arm statute was to give Pennsylvania jurisdiction over those foreign corporations whose products cause damage or injury in Pennsylvania). In addition, the restriction would conflict with section 5323 of the Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5321-5329, which states that “[w]hen the law of this Commonwealth authorizes service of process outside this Commonwealth, the service, when reasonably calculated to give actual notice, may be made: ... by any form of mail addressed to the person to be served and requiring a signed receipt.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5323(a)(3) (1981). Because section 5323 was not rescinded when the supreme court promulgated the new consolidated chapter on service, both rule 424 and section 5323 must be given effect, if possible. This can be achieved if we conclude that rule 424 was not intended to limit service of process on foreign corporations to hand delivery.

A comparison of the rules of service in the new consolidated chapter with former rule 2180 also supports the interpretation of rule 424 espoused by the Reicherts. Rule 2180 was one of the former rules governing service on corporations which were located in the chapter in the Rules of Civil Procedure entitled “Corporations and Similar Entities as Parties.” See Pa.R.C.P. 2176 et seq. The rules on service in this chapter covered all aspects of service on a corporation. When the rules were consolidated, the drafters, it appears, found that a number of the sections and subsections of the rules specifically dealing with service on corporations could be subsumed under general rules of service. Finding that this discovery rang true with various types of actions and parties, the drafters created a set of general rules of service which would apply to actions across the board, except where a special rule was needed. By reducing the number of repetitive rules of service, the drafters were able to reduce the total number of rules of service. The Explanatory Comment preceding rule 400 supports this theory. Outlining the portion of the new chapter devoted to service of original process, the comment provides:

Part I governing service of original process is further divided into four subparts. Subpart A (Rules 400-405), which is entitled “Service Generally”, provides the basic practice for serving original process upon any type of party in any type of action and for making the return of service, except for the special situations provided for in Subparts B and C____ Subpart D (Rule 430) provides for the filing of a motion for a special order of court if service cannot be made as provided for in Subparts A, B, or C.

Explanatory Comment, preceding Pa.R.C.P. 400, 42 Pa.C.S. (1987).

All but one of the aspects of service of process upon corporations, namely service by hand delivery, is now governed by a general rule of service. Service by hand delivery cannot be covered under a general rule because it raises a question which does not exist when other types of parties are being served, namely, if I hand “employee X” of “Y corporation” my complaint, will I have achieved service upon the corporation? Rule 424 answers this question.

Rule 424, then, covers one situation regarding service which necessitates a special rule peculiar to corporations. The other aspects of service upon corporations are governed by the general rules of service. Rule 424 must be used in conjunction with these general rules. Applying this view of rule 424, we find that the substance of almost every section and subsection of rule 2180 was carried over by one of the rules in the 400 series when the rules of service were consolidated. The following chart summarizes this interpretation of the interrelationship between the sections and subsections of rule 2180 and the rules in the 400 series:

SUBSECTION OF RULE 2180 NEW RULE
(a) , (c)(1)----replaced by ......................................424
(b) .........replaced by ......................................400(d)
(c) (2).......replaced by ......................................404(2), (3), (5)
(d) .........replaced by ......................................430

Under this interpretation, service by registered mail continues to be a viable method of service upon corporations pursuant to rule 404(2).

Two sections of the Explanatory Comment strongly support viewing the new rules of service in this manner. One of these sections, which offers an explanation of rule 430, contains the following statement:

Rule 430 consolidates provisions for service by special order presently found in actions involving real property, family law and equity, and rules relating to corporations and similar entities and defendants who conceal their whereabouts or otherwise obstruct service of process.

Explanatory Comment, preceding Pa.R.C.P. 400, 42 Pa.C.S. (1987) (emphasis added). This statement unequivocally establishes the intent of the drafters to replace subsection (d) of rule 2180 with rule 430, and thus, dismisses any notion that rule 424 was intended to replace all the provisions of rule 2180.

The other segment of the Explanatory Comment which bolsters our interpretation of the rules of service concerns service by mail. This section states:

When these amendments were published as Recommendation No. 69, the recommendation proposed to extend the right of service by competent adult and by mail to all actions whether within or outside the Commonwealth. These proposals, however, have not been adopted and are not a part of the present amendments, and the right of service by competent adult and by mail is restricted to those situations where it was previously permitted.

Explanatory Comment, preceding Pa.R.C.P. 400, 42 Pa.C.S. (1987) (emphasis added). This excerpt from the Comment reveals that while there was an effort to broaden the situations where service by mail was allowed, the effort failed. Accordingly, service by mail continued only in those situations where it was allowed before the enactment of the new rules. Because service by mail on foreign corporations was allowed pursuant to rule 2180 prior to the promulgation of rule 424, we conclude that the drafters intended for it to continue as a form of service upon corporations.

Admittedly, one paragraph of the Explanatory Comment lends support to the trial court's conclusion that rule 424 limits the manner in which service can be effectuated upon corporations, both domestic and foreign, to hand delivery. This paragraph provides:

Subpart C (Rule 420-425) consolidates all of the rules governing service upon special parties such as minors or incompetents. Service upon these parties will be made in the manner provided by Rules 400 et seq. unless the rule relating to a particular type of party specifies otherwise. In most instances, these rules merely specify the person who is served.

See Explanatory Comment, preceding Pa.R.C.P. 400, 42 Pa.C.S. (1987). Given that rule 424 states that service “shall be made by handing a copy ...,'' this paragraph appears to suggest that rule 424 was intended to require service on corporations, in all instances, to be made by hand delivery. This section of the Explanatory Comment, however, must be compared to the evidence supporting the narrow view of rule 424: that it was not intended to limit the manner of service on foreign corporations to hand delivery. We find the evidence supporting the narrow view of the rule more compelling. We hold, therefore, that rule 424 did not abolish the option of serving foreign corporations by mail; rule 424 simply specifies those individuals who may be served on behalf of a corporation when service of process is chosen to be made by hand delivery.

Applying this holding to the facts of the instant case, we conclude that the trial court’s order to strike the judgment against Adamas must be reversed and the matter be remanded to the trial court. The trial court’s decision to strike the judgment which had been entered against Ada-mas was based wholly on its determination that rule 424 restricted service upon corporations to hand delivery. The court’s order to strike the judgment against Adamas was, therefore, an error of law.

On remand, the trial court will have to rule on Adamas’s motion to open the judgment. The trial court should note that while the evidence submitted by Adamas to show that the individual who signed for the Reicherts’ complaint was not one of its employees could not be considered in determining whether the judgment should be stricken, it can be considered in determining whether the judgment should be opened.

In regard to the trial court’s decision concerning Falcon, the court offered two reasons for its order to strike the judgment: (1) service cannot be made upon a foreign corporation by certified mail; and, (2) Falcon was not served with the Reicherts’ amended complaint. If one of these reasons supports the trial court’s decision to strike the judgment against Falcon, then the order must be affirmed. Having made it clear that service can be made on a foreign corporation by certified mail, we turn our attention to the second reason given by the court in support of its order.

The trial court concluded that the Reicherts’ failure to serve its amended complaint upon Falcon was a fatal defect on the record adequate to permit the court to strike the default judgment. The trial court reasoned that when an original complaint is amended, the amended pleading becomes the operative pleading in the case and that Pa.R.C.P. 440 “mandates that each party filing or serving any legal papers in an action, other than original process, to serve copies thereof to every other party to the action.” In so reasoning, however, the trial court, misapplied the rules of civil procedure.

The Reicherts’ original complaint was served upon Falcon on October 6, 1986. The complaint contained a notice to defend. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1026, Falcon had twenty days from October 6 to file an answer to the complaint. When the Reicherts sent Falcon the notice of default for failure to file an answer to their complaint on March 9, 1987, they did so based on Falcon’s failure to answer their original complaint. After waiting for ten days for Falcon to respond to the notice as Pa.R.C.P. 237.1 requires, the Reicherts filed a praecipe to enter judgment against Falcon and the prothonotary entered a default judgment against Falcon.

Rule 1037 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part:

(b) The prothonotary, on praecipe of the plaintiff, shall enter judgment against the defendant for failure to file within the required time an answer to a complaint which contains a notice to defend or for any relief admitted to be due by the defendant’s pleadings.

Pa.R.C.P. 1037(b), 42 Pa.C.S. (1987). This rule specifically states that a default judgment may be entered against a defendant for its failure to file an answer to a complaint which contains a notice to defend. Falcon failed to file an answer to the Reichert’s original complaint. Thus, rule 1037 was properly used by the Reicherts to obtain a default judgment against Falcon.

The fact that the Reicherts filed their amended complaint between the time they sent Falcon the notice of default and the time the default judgment was entered does not change our analysis of this situation. The Reicherts were required to amend their complaint as a result of the preliminary objections of one of the other defendants in the suit, Wolverine Cutter Company, not because of any action taken by Falcon. Moreover, the trial court gave the Reicherts seventy-five days from February 3, 1987, the date of its order, to file their amended complaint. Seventy-five days from February 3, 1987 was April 19, 1987. The Reicherts, therefore, filed their amended complaint an entire month before the deadline given by the trial court for them to do so. Consequently, if we were to strike the default judgment against Falcon because Falcon was not served with the Reicherts’ amended complaint, Falcon would benefit and the Reicherts would suffer as a result of the Reicherts’ diligence in complying with the trial court’s order. This would make little sense.

In addition, the Reicherts clearly intended the praecipe for entry of default judgment which they filed with the prothonotary to apply to their original complaint, not to their amended complaint. Indeed, they sent Falcon the notice of default for failure to answer their complaint before they even filed their amended complaint.

We conclude, therefore, that the trial court also erred in basing its order striking the judgment which had been entered against Falcon on the Reicherts' failure to serve Falcon with their amended complaint. As such, we reverse that order and remand the matter to the trial court. Because Falcon filed a motion to strike and/or open the judgment entered against it, the trial court must determine whether there are grounds to open the judgment.

Based on the foregoing discussion, we reverse the orders of the trial court striking the judgments which had been entered against Adamas and Falcon, and remand these matters to the trial court for further consideration.

Reversed and remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

      . The Reicherts named twenty-two defendants in their complaint. This appeal, however, concerns only those events which transpired between the Reicherts, Adamas, and Falcon.

      . The Reicherts filed these appeals pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(1). This rule provides, in pertinent part:
      (a) General Rule. Except as otherwise prescribed by general rule, an appeal may be taken as of right from:
      (1) Affecting Judgments. An order opening, vacating or striking off a judgment, or refusing to open, vacate or strike off a judgment. If orders opening, vacating or striking off a judgment are sought in the alternative, no appeal may be filed until the court has disposed of each claim for relief.
      Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(1). In the present case, the trial court disposed of each claim for relief since it granted appellees' petitions to strike and thereby rendered moot appellees’ petitions to open. Hertzog v. Jung, 363 Pa.Super. 439, 442 n. 1, 526 A.2d 425, 427 n. 1 (1987), appeal denied, 516 Pa. 641, 533 A.2d 712 (1987) (appellant filed petition to strike and/or open confessed judgment; despite absence of any explicit order of trial court disposing of petition to open, appeal from trial court order striking judgment considered timely).

      . In applying this rule of construction, the trial court stated: "Pa.R. C.P. 424 is specific as to service upon corporations, whereas, Pa.R.C.P. 404 is general as to service made outside the Commonwealth.” This rationale for holding that rule 424 restricts the manner of service upon a foreign corporation to hand delivery, however, is unsound because both rule 424 and rule 404 can be viewed as being either general or particular. The trial court could have just as easily reasoned that rule 424 applies specifically to service upon parties located outside this Commonwealth whereas rule 404 applies generally to service upon corporations. Because both of these rules can be viewed as general or specific, the rule of construction that specific rules take precedence over general ones is not helpful in resolving the issue of whether service upon foreign corporations can be effectuated by certified mail.

      . The Disposition of Rescinded Rules table provides, in pertinent part:
      Former Rule New Rule
      2079 404
      2180(a) 424
      2180(b)-(d) _

        See Disposition of Rescinded Rules table, preceding Pa.R.C.P. 400. This table, while offering some help in locating which rules in the new chapter replaced the old rules of service, is by no means an accurate index to the new rules. A cursory review of the prior rules of service, including Pa.R.C.P. 2131, 2157, and 2180, and the new rules of service, specifically Pa.R.C.P. 404, 423, 424, and 430, confirms this supposition.

      . Prior to the enactment of the new consolidated chapter on service of process, the rules of service applicable to "partnerships," "unincorporated associations," and "corporations and similar entities” were located in three separate chapters of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule of service applicable to partnerships, Pa.R.C.P. 2131, was located in the chapter entitled "Partnerships as Parties." Section (a) of rule 2131 delineated the individuals who could be served on behalf of a partnership. The remaining sections of the rule, specifically sections (b) through (d), listed the various methods of service which could be utilized to effectuate service. Because rule 2131 was constructed in this manner, the provisions listing the methods of service which could be chosen had to be used in conjunction with the section listing those individuals who could be served on behalf of a partnership. Since service by registered mail was authorized in section (d) as a method of achieving service of process upon a partnership, the drafters presumably intended the registered mail directed to the partnership to be addressed to one of the individuals delineated- in section (a).
      The rule of service applicable to unincorporated associations, Pa.R. C.P. 2157, was located in the chapter entitled “Unincorporated Associations as Parties." The organization of rule 2157 paralled that of rule 2131. Section (a) of the rule listed those individuals who could be served on behalf of an unincorporated association with the remaining sections of the rule prescribing the methods of service which could be utilized to effectuate service. Section (d) of the rule, like section (d) of rule 2131, authorized service by registered mail as a form of service upon an unincorporated association. As with rule 2131, the sections of rule 2157 listing the methods of service, including section (d), had to be used in conjunction with the section listing those individuals upon whom service could be made to effectuate service upon an unincorporated association.
      The rule of service which applied to corporations and similar entities prior to the enactment of the new consolidated chapter, however, was not organized in the same manner as rules 2131 and 2157. Section (a) of rule 2180 listed those individuals who could be served by hand delivery on behalf of corporations located within the county of the party attempting service. Section (b), which governed service by hand delivery upon corporations located in a county other than that of the party attempting service, and subsection (c)(2), which authorized service by hand delivery upon corporations located outside the Commonwealth, referred back to section (a). In this manner, regardless of where the corporation was located, service by hand delivery had to be made upon one of those individuals listed in section (a) for the service to be valid. Subsection (c)(2), however, which, in conjunction with Pa.R.C.P. 2079(c)(3), permitted service upon foreign corporations to be made by registered mail, did not refer back to section (a). Consequently, rule 2180 contained no specific instructions as to whom the registered mail had to be addressed to effectuate service upon foreign corporations; the only direction in this regard was contained in rule 2079, subsection (c)(3), which stated that the mail simply had to be sent to the "last known address of the defendant.” See Pa.R.C.P. 2079(c)(3) (rescinded June 20, 1985, effective January 1, 1986).
      We are unable to discern any reason that supports the drafter’s decision to delineate those individuals upon whom service by registered mail had to be made to effectuate service upon the entities referred to in rules 2131 and 2157 while not doing the same in rule 2180. Consequently, we believe this inconsistency in the rules of service might have been an oversight by the drafters. This inconsistency, however, appears to have been perpetuated in the new rules on service of process.
      Rule 423 of the new rules applies to "partnerships and unincorporated associations.” This rule lists those individuals who are authorized to receive service of process upon partnerships and unincorporated associations. The rule does not prescribe the methods of service which can be utilized to achieve service of process upon those entities. For that information, one must refer to the general rules of service in the consolidated chapter. Therefore, as with the previous rules, the provision delineating those individuals who may be served on behalf of a partnership or unincorporated association, namely rule 423, must be used in conjunction with the other rules in the chapter on service which prescribe the methods of service which may be utilized to effectuate service upon those entities. Rule 424, on the other hand, which is entitled "Corporations and Similar Entities,” while also delineating those individuals who are authorized to receive service on behalf of corporations and similar entities, appears to restrict the manner of service upon corporations to hand delivery. Therefore, the rule appears to delineate those individuals who may accept service on behalf of the corporation only when the method used to achieve service is Hand delivery. Once again, we see no rationale supporting this difference between rule 423 and rule 424.
      We do not, however, have the authority to remedy this inconsistency in the rules. Our task is simply to interpret the rules in the manner in which they presently exist. In our interpretation of the rules, we are bound to follow the rules of construction. Because Pa.R.C.P. 2180 failed to list the individuals to whom registered mail could be sent on behalf of a foreign corporation when registered mail was chosen as the method of service, we cannot interpret Pa.R.C.P. 424 as authoritatively setting forth a list of individuals, one of whom must be served on behalf of a corporation, no matter what manner of service is chosen. See Pa.R.C.P. 127(c), 42 Pa.C.S. (1987) (“[T]he intention of the Supreme Court may be ascertained by considering, among other matters ... (5) the prior practice, if any, including other rules and Acts of Assembly upon the same or similar subjects; ... (7) the contemporaneous history of the rule____”)•

      . This portion of Explanatory Comment also demonstrates that the Disposition of Rescinded Rules table was included in the section introducing the new rules of service only as a convenience for the bench and the bar, see Explanatory Comment, preceding Pa.R.C.P. 400, 42 Pa.C.S. (1987); the table was not intended to authoritatively represent all changes in the rules. Although the Explanatory Comment clearly indicates that section (d) of rule 2180 was replaced by rule 430, the Disposition of Rescinded Rules table does not contain reference to this change. See, supra, note 4.

      . As we stated previously, Adamas’s petition to open the judgment was rendered moot when the trial court entered its order granting Ada-mas’s petition to strike the judgment. See, supra, note 2. Given our reversal of the trial court’s order, however, Adamas’s petition to open is no longer moot. It must, therefore, be addressed.

      . As support for this holding, the trial court cited to Clymire v. McKivitz, 350 Pa.Super. 472, 504 A.2d 937 (1986). Clymire, however, does not lend credence to the trial court’s conclusion. In Clymire, the trial court entered an order striking the default judgment which had been entered against the appellee, McKivitz, on the ground that he had not been served with the writ of summons. On appeal, we affirmed the trial court's order. In doing so, we reasoned that even assuming McKwitz was properly served with the writ of summons, service of that document did not excuse the need to serve the complaint upon him after it had been filed. We stated:
      A writ of summons is "only a simple notice to the defendant that the plaintiff has instituted suit against him and that the defendant is ‘required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against’ him. [It] does not create a judgment by default for want of an appearance. The default judgment may be entered ... only as authorized by Rule 1037____ Indeed, [the service of a writ of summons] imposes no duty whatever upon the defendant until the plaintiff files and serves his complaint, to which the defendant will be required to plead, if it is properly endorsed.” 1 Goodrich-Am-ram 2d § 1007:4. The record in this case does not disclose that the complaint was ever served upon David McKivitz. This is a fatal defect.

        Id., 350 Pa.Superior Ct. at 476, 504 A.2d at 939 (footnote omitted). Clymire is distinguishable from the instant case because Falcon was served with the original complaint. Having received the original complaint, Falcon had a duty to answer it or suffer a default judgment. Rule 1037 of the Rules of Civil Procedure specifically lists the failure to answer a complaint as a basis for a default judgment.

      . Rule 237.1 states, in pertinent part:
      (a) No judgment by default shall be entered by the prothonotary unless the praecipe for entry includes a certificate that a written notice of intention to file the praecipe was mailed or delivered to the party against whom judgment is to be entered and to his attorney of record, if any, after the default occurred an at least ten days prior to the date of the filing of the praecipe.
      Pa.R.C.P. 237.1, 42 Pa.C.S. (1987).

      . In view of our determination that the trial court erred in granting Falcon’s petition to strike the default judgment entered against it, Falcon’s petition to open the default judgment is no longer moot. Therefore, as with Adamas’s petition to open, it must be addressed.


author: ROWLEY, Judge:

text:
    561 A.2d 756
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Randy James HOYMAN, Appellant.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted Feb. 13, 1989.
    Filed June 28, 1989.

      William J. McCabe, Greensburg, for appellant.
    John W. Peck, II, Assistant District Attorney, Arnold, for Com.
    Before ROWLEY, McEWEN and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
   ROWLEY, Judge:

This submitted case is an appeal from an order of the trial court denying appellant’s second collateral petition for relief from his conviction for rape. The petition was erroneously filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Hearing Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9551 (hereinafter “PCHA”), which was modified in part, repealed in part, and renamed the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541, et seq., eff. April 13, 1988, by Act of April 13, 1988, No. 47, §§ 3-4, 1988 Pa.Legis.Srv. 229-232 (hereinafter “PCRA”). The relief sought by appellant is a nunc pro tunc direct appeal to this Court. Appellant raises one issue for our review: whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal to the Superior Court from appellant’s judgment of sentence?

A brief review of the procedural history of this case is necessary. Appellant was found guilty by a jury of Rape and Terroristic Threats. Post-trial motions were filed and denied. Appellant was sentenced on June 24, 1987. No appeal was taken from the judgment of sentence.

Appellant, on March 29, 1988, filed a pro se petition for relief under the PCHA in which he belatedly sought modification of his sentence. The trial court, without appointing counsel or holding a hearing, denied the petition on April 4, 1988. Appellant filed a second collateral petition May 24, 1988, which, although designated as being pursuant to the PCHA, should have been a petition under the PCRA, which went into effect on April 13, 1988. In this second petition appellant alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Upon review of the petition the trial court appointed new counsel to represent appellant, and a PCRA hearing was scheduled for August 23, 1988. At the hearing, PCRA counsel stated for the record, “[a]ll we are asking for in this case is an Order where you will allow us to file an appeal to the Superior Court nunc pro tunc .” N.T. 8/23/88 at 3. At the close of the PCRA hearing the court noted: “I find [counsel] negligent for [not] taking an appeal her client wanted to take.” Id. at 21.

The next day, August 24, 1988, the PCRA court filed an opinion in which it found as a fact that the Assistant Public Defender who had represented appellant at trial failed to file a timely appeal due to a clerical error or miscommunication in her office. The PCRA court, however, went on to determine that there were no underlying issues of merit to appellant’s claimed trial errors, and hence found there to have been no ineffectiveness on the part of defense counsel in failing to take the direct appeal. As a result, the trial court denied appellant’s request for a direct appeal, nunc pro tunc. This appeal followed.

The trial court found that appellant’s trial counsel had been at fault for failing to file a direct appeal on appellant’s behalf. The record supports that finding. The trial court concluded, however, that the issues which appellant would have argued on direct appeal, though preserved for appellate review both at trial and post trial, had no merit and denied appellant’s request to be allowed to take a direct appeal to this Court, nunc pro tunc. In reaching that conclusion, the trial court departed from the holding of our Court in Commonwealth v. Miranda, 296 Pa.Super. 441, 442 A.2d 1133 (1982).

In Miranda, we held that where a PCHA petitioner has alleged the ineffectiveness of his or her trial counsel for failing to take a direct appeal, the PCHA court is precluded from reaching the merits of other issues raised in the PCHA petition once the trial court determines that petitioner has been deprived of his direct appeal right and grants an appeal nunc pro tunc. Id., 296 Pa.Superior Ct. at 451, 442 A.2d at 1138.

Although Miranda was decided under the PCHA, we hold that it is to be applied with equal force to proceedings under the PCRA. It is apparent from the record that appellant was denied his right to appeal. The terms of the PCRA indicate that application of our decision in Miranda is called for in this situation. Section 9542 states in relevant part: “This subchapter is not intended to limit the availability of remedies in the trial court or on direct appeal from the judgment of sentence____” (emphasis added). For these reasons, in the case at bar, the PCRA court erred in addressing the merits of the substantive issues which appellant claims should have been raised on appeal. Once the court concluded that appellant was denied his right of direct appeal the proper course would have been to grant appellant leave to file a direct appeal nunc pro tunc. Commonwealth v. Ciotto, 382 Pa.Super. 458, 555 A.2d 930 (1989) (when a defendant establishes that counsel’s ineffective assistance denied him entirely his right to a direct appeal, he is entitled to a direct appeal nunc pro tunc without regard to his ability to establish the merit of the issues which he seeks to raise on direct appeal).

Nor is appellant’s right to file a direct appeal barred by the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth v. Lawson, 519 Pa. 504, 549 A.2d 107 (1988). In Commonwealth v. Lawson, our Supreme Court determined, in the context of the PCHA, that “[a] repetitive or serial petition may be entertained only for the purpose of avoiding a demonstrated miscarriage of justice, which no civilized society can tolerate.” Id., 519 Pa. at 513-514, 549 A.2d at 112. Our Court has applied Lawson with equal force to proceedings under the PCRA. Commonwealth v. Blackwell, — Pa.Cmwlth. —, 555 A.2d 279 (1989). Moreover, the Comment to new Pa.R.Crim.P. 1507 states that “[a] second or subsequent motion should be summarily dismissed when the judge determines that the defendant has failed to make a strong prima facie showing that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.” Lawson and new Rule 1507 were not available to the PCRA court in this case, so this Court must determine whether such a miscarriage is present.

We hold that failure of trial counsel to take a direct appeal, when his client so requests, is a demonstrated miscarriage of justice within the meaning of Lawson. The importance of appellate rights was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963). There, the Supreme Court required appointment of counsel for indigent state defendants on their first appeal as of right. Five years later, when our state constitution was amended in 1968, the legislature provided that Pennsylvania citizens have an absolute right to appeal. Our Supreme Court has steadfastly upheld that right:

[A]n accused has an absolute right to appeal, Pa. Constitution, Article V, § 9, and counsel can be faulted for allowing that right to be waived unless the accused himself effectively waives the right, i.e. for not protecting the accused’s right in the absence of an effective waiver.

Commonwealth v. Wilkerson, 490 Pa. 296, 299, 416 A.2d 477, 479 (1980).

Finally, the eminent former Chief Judge Aldisert of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals wrote just two years after our Constitution was amended:

The courts have exhibited an increasing sensitivity to the constitutional rights of indigent defendants at the critical post-trial stage. No longer can there be any doubt that a state’s obligation to furnish counsel is not discharged when the verdict is read and sentence is imposed. The equal protection clause and the due process incorporation of the sixth amendment require that an indigent be afforded the assistance of legal counsel at every critical stage throughout the criminal process. And to insure the effectiveness of such assistance, the appointed trial attorney has been charged with the duty of respecting his client’s desire to file an appeal, even if in his best professional judgment the appeal is utterly without merit.

U.S. ex rel. O’Brien v. Maroney, 423 F.2d 865, 868 (3d Cir., 1970).

Ciotto, supra, indicates that the right of direct appeal is superior to that of an appeal in collateral proceedings because appellant need not establish the merit of the issues he seeks to raise. The Court in Wilkerson recognized as much when it noted, “[the] requirement that counsel protect the appellate right of an accused extends even to circumstances where the appeal is ‘totally without merit.’ ” Wilkerson, supra, 490 Pa. at 299, 416 A.2d at 479.

Nor do the decisions in Commonwealth v. Lawson, supra, and Commonwealth v. Blackwell, supra, command a contrary result. Although Lawson and Blackwell have some similarities to the case before us, there is a critical distinction between them. Mr. Lawson was the beneficiary of one (1) direct appeal and Mr. Blackwell was the beneficiary of two (2) direct appeals. Mr. Hoyman, through no fault of his own, has had none. Thus, Mr. Lawson’s and Mr. Blackwell’s constitutional rights to take a direct appeal were not violated and the only remaining source of relief was in a collateral proceeding where the underlying substantive issues were presented in the context of ineffective counsel. Here, Mr. Hoyman having established that an important state constitutional right has been denied him is entitled to have that right reinstated and to proceed with a direct appeal. In the case at bar, appellant told the Assistant Public Defender who had represented him at trial that he wanted to take a direct appeal, and it was determined at the PCRA hearing that she knew of appellant’s request that a direct appeal was to be filed on his behalf. Through no fault of his own a direct appeal was not filed. Because a miscarriage of justice has occurred in the case at bar, appellant is entitled to the relief he seeks in this PCRA proceeding, i.e., a direct appeal.

However, it is not necessary for us to remand the case to the trial court. Because the substantive issues appellant seeks to have considered on direct appeal have been briefed and argued by the parties, and, the record is complete, we may consider them at this time in the context of a nunc pro tunc direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Miranda, 296 Pa.Super at 456, 442 A.2d at 1140.

Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in permitting nurse Beverly Yakelis to testify as to whether she believed the victim was telling the truth in claiming that she had been raped. Appellant argues that this improperly impinged upon the fact-finding role of the jury. The trial court held that the contested evidence was admissible because defense counsel had “opened the door” during cross-examination. We do not agree that defense counsel opened the door to improper testimony, and hold that the trial court erred in admitting the nurse’s personal opinion that the victim was telling the truth about the attack.

Nurse Yakelis testified on direct that the victim “was brought in for an alleged sexual assault.” N.T. at 148. As an emergency room nurse, and pursuant to standard procedure of the emergency department at Latrobe Area Hospital, she took certain information from the victim at the time of admission. The Assistant District Attorney asked Nurse Yakelis about the victim’s appearance, particularly her outward appearance. She testified that there were bits of grass on her clothing, but she didn’t recall any abrasions, bruises or lacerations. When asked about the victim’s emotional state, the nurse testified “[s]he was more tearful when she first came into the department____ [B]y the time we discharged her she was much less tearful.” N.T. at 150. The nurse next testified that the victim was concerned for the safety of herself and her family for having gone to the police. Finally, the nurse related her role in collecting specimens from the physician as he removed them from the victim. She stated that she believed grass was removed from the pubic hair and rectal areas of the victim.

On cross-examination the following interchange occurred between defense counsel and Nurse Yakelis:

Q. You indicated that [the victim] came for an alleged sexual assault, is that right?
A. Right.
Q. She was there because there were allegations that she had been raped, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You made no conclusion or you- — let’s put it this way. You made no conclusions, in fact, she was raped, did you?
A. As a nurse, no.

N.T. at 153 (emphasis added).

On redirect, the Assistant District Attorney immediately asked:

Q. Mrs. Yakelis, Mrs. Mitas asked you the question whether or not you came to a conclusion that [the victim] was raped, and your answer was [“]not as a nurse, no.[”] Did you come to a conclusion as a human being whether or not you believed she was raped?

N.T. at 156 (emphasis added). Defense counsel immediately objected on the basis that the nurse could only testify to medical records and procedures which occurred in the emergency room. The court overruled the objection and permitted the nurse to answer. She testified:

Okay, as a medical person, I am not permitted to make legal judgments and it’s been our understanding and our explanation on behalf of the District Attorney’s Office and the State Police that rape is in fact a legal definition, a legal term, sexual assault falls in that same category. As a person, I would have to say that I found [the victim’s] story very believable both because of the way she told it, and the fact that she was very consistent in what she said.

N.T. at 157-58 (emphasis added). Admission by the trial court of this witness’ opinion concerning the veracity of the victim’s story was prejudicial error and requires the granting of a new trial.

Our Supreme Court has held that “[a]s the phenomenon of lying is within the ordinary capacity of jurors to assess, the question of a witness’s credibility is reserved exclusively for the jury.” Commonwealth v. Davis, 518 Pa. 77, 82, 541 A.2d 315, 317 (1988). This Court, as well, has held on innumerable occasions that determination of the credibility of witnesses is within the sole province of the jury. Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 358 Pa.Super. 98, 516 A.2d 1200 (1986); Commonwealth v. Kale, 331 Pa.Super. 155, 480 A.2d 291 (1984); Commonwealth v. Ruffin, 317 Pa.Super. 126, 463 A.2d 1117 (1983); Commonwealth v. Battle, 289 Pa.Super. 369, 433 A.2d 496 (1981). However, the trial court justified admission of the testimony on the basis that “defense counsel was the party to bring up this area of inquiry” and, thus, opened the door “to an area of testimony which the Commonwealth could not have brought up on its own.” Trial court opinion of 4/27/87 at 4. In support of its position the trial court cites the venerable treatise, McCormick on Evidence.

McCormick states the general rule: “[0]ne who induces a trial court to let down the bars to a field of inquiry that is not competent or relevant to the issues cannot complain if his adversary is also allowed to avail himself of the opening.” McCormick on Evidence § 57 (3d ed.1984). We fail to see how the defendant induced the court to let down the bars to an irrelevant or incompetent inquiry. After the Assistant District Attorney established that the witness was in a position to view the physical condition of the victim, the defense legitimately asked the witness whether she reached the conclusion “in fact, she was raped.” It is apparent that by not framing the question more specifically, defense counsel risked having the nurse offer an improper personal opinion in response. But this did not happen. Nurse Yakelis limited her answer to a purely professional opinion: “As a nurse, no.”

Importantly, the physical condition of the victim was within the realm of the nurse’s knowledge as an assistant to the physician who performed the examination. Had Nurse Yakelis’ contact with the victim been only verbal, we would perhaps agree that the door to improper inquiry had been opened by the defense. This was not the case, however. The Assistant District Attorney established that the nurse viewed the victim, saw bits of grass on her clothing, in the vicinity of her pubic hair and rectum, yet saw no bruises, abrasions or lacerations. The defense was justified in asking whether the evidence established that the victim had been raped. That question, together with the nurse’s answer which was limited to her professional capacity as a nurse, did not open the door to an otherwise improper area of inquiry. Thus, Nurse Yakelis’ opinion of the veracity of the victim’s story, brought out by the Commonwealth on redirect testimony, improperly impinged upon the fact-finding role of the jury.

Next, appellant argues that the trial court erred in permitting a state trooper to testify that following the incident he overheard appellant tell his wife on the phone that “he had done something wrong.” N.T. at 138. Over the objection of the defense, the trial court permitted the statement to come in on the basis that it was an admission against his interest. Although we have already determined that appellant is entitled to the remedy he seeks, a new trial, we address this issue because of the likelihood that it will arise again in the new trial.

Appellant’s counsel acknowledges that declarations against penal interest are admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. However, defense counsel argued at trial, and appellate counsel now argues, that appellant admitted only a moral wrong, infidelity, and not a legal wrong, rape. Our Supreme Court has held:

As a general rule voluntary, extrajudicial statements made by a defendant may be used against that defendant although they contain no admission of guilt. These extrajudicial statements, which differ from confessions in that they do not acknowledge all essential elements of a crime, are generally considered to qualify for introduction into evidence under the admission exception to the hearsay rule.

Commonwealth v. Tervalon, 463 Pa. 581, 590, 345 A.2d 671, 676 (1975) (footnote and citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 518 Pa. 15, 540 A.2d 246 (1988) (citing Tervalon). In Tervalon, the extrajudicial statement admitted at trial was the defendant’s statement that he had been with a friend the evening of the crime, introduction of which followed testimony by the defendant’s wife that he had been home the entire evening. McCormick notes that declarations against interest and admissions are at times misunderstood by lawyers. A declaration against interest must have been against the declarant’s interest when made. No such requirement exists with respect to admissions. McCormick on Evidence § 262 (3d ed.1984). We find no error with the trial judge’s ruling.

Last, appellant argues that references to facts not of record by the prosecutor in her closing argument require the granting of a new trial, and that the trial court erred in refusing to do so. Obviously, this argument is rendered moot by our decision to grant appellant a new trial.

The trial court’s order of August 23, 1988, is reversed. Judgment of sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for a new trial. Jurisdiction is relinquished.

McEWEN, J., concurs in the result.

      . Because the PCRA went into effect on April 13, 1988, all collateral proceedings which were instituted after that date are deemed to have been brought under the PCRA, and shall be referred to in this opinion as such. See Commonwealth v. Lawson, 519 Pa. 504, 506 n. 1, 549 A.2d 107, 108 n. 1 (1988).

      . The PCRA went into effect on April 13, 1988. The new Rules of Criminal Procedure 1501 through 1509, governing Post-Conviction Collateral Proceedings, were promulgated by the Supreme Court and became effective July 1, 1989. We are not applying new Rule 1507 retroactively. Rather, we cite it as persuasive authority to enlarge our understanding of Commonwealth v. Lawson.

      . But see Ross v. Moffit, 417 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974) (criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to counsel for pursuit of discretionary appeals).