author: WIEAND, Judge:

text:
    518 A.2d 1238
    Ida BALL v. ROLLING HILL HOSPITAL, Israel Finestone, M.D., E. DiStefano, R.N., William Carlson and Kenneth Algazy, M.D. Appeal of ROLLING HILL HOSPITAL and Israel Finestone, M.D. Ida BALL, Appellant, v. ROLLING HILL HOSPITAL, Israel Finestone, M.D. E. DiStefano, R.N., William Carlson and Kenneth Algazy, M.D., Appellees.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued May 28, 1986.
    Filed Dec. 16, 1986.

      Sharon M. Reiss, Philadelphia, for appellants in No. 2654 and for appellees in No. 2763.
    Robert C. Daniels, Philadelphia, for appellant in No. 2763 and for appellee in No. 2654.
    Before WIEAND, BECK and JOHNSON, JJ.
   WIEAND, Judge:

On January 25, 1982, Ida Ball, a victim of Hodgkin’s disease, was undergoing chemotherapy treatment at Rolling Hill Hospital in Philadelphia when the chemotherapeutic drugs being administered to her intravenously by Dr. Israel Finestone infiltrated the muscle tissue of her right arm. She commenced a medical malpractice action against Rolling Hill Hospital and Dr. Finestone to recover for the loss which she had sustained as a result of the incident. The jury which heard the evidence returned a verdict in favor of Ball and against Dr. Finestone and the hospital in the amount of $550,000. Post-trial motions for judgment n.o.v., new trial, and remittitur were denied. The trial court also denied Ball’s motion for declaratory judgment in which she sought an award of post-judgment interest at the prime rate or, in the alternative, at the rate of ten percent. These cross-appeals by the parties followed. We affirm.

It is the contention of Rolling Hill Hospital and Dr. Finestone, in their appeal, that they are entitled to a new trial because of the following eight instances of trial error:

1. The trial court erred several times in misstating and mischaracterizing the deposition of Dr. Finestone and committed such other grievous errors that the granting of this appeal is mandated.
2. The trial court erred in permitting Dr. Edward Viner to testify in terms which clearly failed to meet the community’s standard of care.
3. The trial court .incorrectly refused appellees’ request to charge the jury that a specialist is held to a higher degree of care than is a general practitioner.
4. The trial court erred in admitting into evidence the Rolling Hill Hospital chemotherapy protocol which was not promulgated until after the alleged injury.
5. The trial court erred in admitting into evidence photographs of plaintiff which were gruesome and highly prejudicial.
6. The trial court erred in excluding portions of Dr. David Harris’ deposition addressing the issue of assumption of the risk and later in failing to instruct the jury on assumption of the risk, where the defense was at issue in the case.
7. The trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on habit evidence.
8. The trial court erred in refusing appellees’ request for a new panel of jurors.

Because issues two, three, five and seven have been adequately discussed and properly resolved in the opinion of the trial court, we find it unnecessary to discuss them further in this opinion. We are unable to review issue six because a transcript of Dr. Harris’ videotaped deposition is not a part of the original record sent to this Court. We note, however, that even if the transcript had been contained in the record, the exclusion of Dr. Harris’ testimony concerning the issue of assumption of risk would not have afforded the defendants a basis for relief. “[T]he plaintiff in a malpractice action does not assume the risk of negligence or other malpractice on the part of the defendant or physician or surgeon.” 61 Am.Jur.2d Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Healers, § 304. The remaining issues raised by the defendants — numbers one, four and eight— will be discussed seriatim.

The central issue at trial was whether the procedure followed by Dr. Finestone, in administering the chemotherapeutic drugs to Mrs. Ball, was in accordance with the standard practice within the medical community for providing such treatment. According to the undisputed evidence, there were two acceptable procedures for administering chemotherapeutic drugs intravenously. One was to allow the medication to flow from a hanging bag through an intravenous (IV) tube into the patient’s vein. Under this procedure, the rate at which the drug was introduced into the vein was to be regulated by a valve attached to the IV line. The other procedure was to use a hypodermic syringe to “push” the medication into the side portal of an established IV line by depressing the plunger of the syringe.

No matter which procedure was used, however, it was standard procedure, throughout the course of each, to check continually to ensure that the IV line was “patent,” i.e., that the catheter was still within the “feeder” vein. Four methods were used to test for patency: (1) opening the valve to the IV line to insure that the medication was flowing freely; (2) examining the area around the» vein for discoloration; (3) lowering the IV bag below the level of the patient’s arm; and (4) closing the IV line and pulling back on the plunger of the syringe. If the catheter were properly in the vein, the latter two tests would cause blood to be siphoned back into the IV line. Where there was little or no blood return in the line, according to prevailing knowledge, infiltration was probable.

Although Dr. Finestone had no independent recollection of the method which he had employed to administer chemotherapeutic drugs to Mrs. Ball on January 5, 1982, he testified at trial to his normal practice. He stated on direct examination that it was his practice, after an IV line had been set up but before administration of chemotherapeutic drugs had begun, to check the patency of the IV line by lowering the IV bag below the patient’s arm. However, once he had begun to “push” the medication into the feeder vein via the hypodermic syringe, Dr. Finestone testified, he would thereafter check for patency only by pulling back on the plunger of the syringe.

During cross-examination, plaintiff’s attorney attempted to demonstrate that this aspect of Dr. Finestone’s testimony was inconsistent with statements which he had made in a pre-trial deposition. Thus, the following colloquy took place:

Q. Doctor, do you recall testifying at your deposition in Hawaii that you would rarely check for blood return by pulling back on the syringe?
A. I recall having read the deposition that I would test most of the time by dropping the bag, but the inference I was making was that this was testing prior to the beginning of the giving of the chemotherapeutic drug. I was not testifying as to what I did during the administration of the chemotherapeutic drug.
Q. But did you not say, sir, that you rarely tested by pulling back on the syringe?
MR. POST: Objection.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
THE WITNESS: I do not recall that exact wording. If I so stated in the deposition, I so stated, but it’s not consistent with the procedure I followed during the administration of the drug.
BY MR. DANIEL:
Q. Sir, let me—
THE COURT: Page.
BY MR. DANIELS:
Q. Page forty-two, line fourteen.
Q. You indicated that there were three or four ways to insure that the IV was in place: number one was to open the line full and to see that it was running freely; number two, to check the site to see that there was no swelling or discoloration; number three, to lower the level of the bag below the level of the arm so there would be blood return; or four, an additional way which would be to close the line off and pull the syringe back with suction to see if there was blood returned.
For any of those four methods, can you specifically recollect that you did those to Ida Ball on that date?
A. I can specifically recollect that I have done this for every case chemotherapy I’ve administered. I have the right to assume that I did so in this specific instance for Ida Ball.
Do you remember saying that?
A. I recognize it’s in the deposition. So, I recognize that I probably said it.
Q. And then you were asked:
How often would you use that fourth alternative; that is to cut the line off and pull the syringe back to check to see if there was blood returned?
A. Rarely, since I found the other two techniques almost uniformly satisfactory to prove to me the line was in proper position.
Do you remember saying that, sir?
A. I don’t remember having said that. I accept that I said it because it’s in the deposition.
Q. So you rarely used that technique of pulling the syringe back to check for blood return by your own admission under oath; isn’t that right, sir?
A. That’s right and it’s not right. The inference that I drew at the time of that questioning was that we were talking about the initial testing before chemotherapy was instituted. There is nothing there, there is no question there to ask me what I did during the administration of chemotherapy.

N.T. at 4.19-.22. The defendants argue that it was error for the trial court to permit plaintiff’s counsel to refer to portions of Dr. Finestone’s deposition testimony out of context in order to contradict his trial testimony. We disagree.

The scope of cross-examination is largely within the discretion of the trial judge, and his action will not be reversed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of that discretion or an error of law. Townsend Will, 430 Pa. 318, 323, 241 A.2d 534, 537, cert. denied sub. nom, Cochran v. Morris, 393 U.S. 934, 89 S.Ct. 293, 21 L.Ed.2d 270 (1968); Williams v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 415 Pa. 370, 373-374, 203 A.2d 665, 668 (1964); Kemp v. Qualls, 326 Pa.Super. 319, 324, 473 A.2d 1369, 1371 (1984); Gatling v. Rothman, 267 Pa.Super. 566, 571, 407 A.2d 387, 389 (1979). It is clear from Pa.R.C.P. 4020(a)(1) that a “deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness.” In fact, “[t]he deposition of a party ... may be used by an adverse party for any purpose.” Pa.R.C.P. 4020(a)(2) (emphasis added). Thus, it was not error for the trial court to allow counsel for Mrs. Ball to cross-examine Dr. Finestone concerning his pre-trial deposition in order to impeach the witness’ credibility. The court’s decision to allow such cross-examination is no less proper simply because, in conducting the cross-examination, counsel for Mrs. Ball referred only to selected portions of Dr. Finestone’s deposition testimony. If defendants believed that the jury had been misled by counsel’s selective reference to Dr. Fine-stone’s deposition testimony, they could have brought to the attention of the jury any other portion of the deposition which they thought would clarify testimony taken out of context. Having failed to do so, the defendants will not be heard to argue that the selective reference to Dr. Fine-stone’s deposition testimony by plaintiff’s counsel had a deleterious effect. Given Dr. Finestone’s capable explanation for the purported conflict between his deposition and trial testimonies, it is difficult in any event to imagine that the selective references cited by the defendants prejudiced the defense.

Because Dr. Finestone’s deposition testimony was a proper subject for the jury’s consideration in evaluating the physician’s credibility, it was not error for the trial court to permit plaintiff’s counsel to summarize that testimony during closing argument. This is so even though, according to the defendants, the testimony was mischaracterized by plaintiff’s attorney. In light of the trial court’s admonition to the jury that the content of the deposition testimony would be left to their recollection, any prejudice attending counsel’s remarks was rectified. See: Walasavage v. Marinelli, 334 Pa.Super. 396, 409, 483 A.2d 509, 516 (1984).

It was Ball’s contention at trial that Dr. Finestone not only had failed adequately to monitor the IV line for paten-cy, but also that he had administered the drugs too rapidly. According to a medication chart which had been prepared by Mrs. Ball’s attending nurse and which was admitted into evidence at trial, Mrs. Ball’s medication was to have been administered to her by a procedure known as “IV push.” In his pre-trial deposition, Dr. Finestone had testified that the term “push” meant to administer the drugs rapidly. After reviewing a transcript of his deposition testimony and consulting with his attorney, however, Dr. Finestone later prepared an errata sheet in which he stated that “pushing” referred not to the speed with which the drugs were introduced into the patient’s vein, but simply to the fact that the medication was administered by depressing the plunger of a hypodermic syringe. On cross-examination, he was asked to explain why he had changed his deposition testimony. Dr. Finestone replied that he had misinterpreted the meaning of the term during his deposition and that he had amended his deposition testimony when he realized that he had made a mistake.

The trial court, in its charge to the jury, referred to Dr. Finestone’s changed testimony about the meaning of the term “IV push” in order to explain to the jury the inferences which it might draw from a prior inconsistent statement of a witness. The court instructed:

The inconsistent statement of a witness is something that you may consider in determining whether their testimony in court was correct or whether their previous testimony was correct, but obviously these are all the kinds of things that you consider, perhaps unconsciously every day in determining how and whom to believe. The evidence which you have heard that a witness made an earlier statement inconsistent with the testimony of this trial has been admitted to aid you in evaluating the credibility of the witness and you should use it in that connection. Evidence that the plaintiff or defendant made an earlier statement inconsistent with testimony at trial, you may consider in evaluating credibility, but you may also consider it as evidence here in trial. In this connection, you will consider I think the testimony of Dr. Finestone in deposition that he pushed the injections and in deposition he testified that pushing the injection meant rapid injection. However, in correcting that on his erata [sic], he said that push could be either fast or slow. The erata [sic] you recall is the process by which after the notes of testimony are transcribed they are sent to the witness and the witness goes over them and determines whether any mistakes are concerned. If you believe that that was a mistake in transcription and that he changed only to correct his transcription, then you would be accepting his revised version as his deposition testimony. If you believe that he changed the transcription because he felt it was somewhat in his favor to have it come in differently, then you would accept his original testimony. Consider that and compare it to his testimony in court and make your judgment with reference to his credibility.

N.T. at 7.25-.26. The defendants contend that this instruction was erroneous because it destroyed the credibility of Dr. Finestone by implying that he had lied either in his deposition testimony or during his appearance at trial. We do not agree.

There is no question that the definition of “IV push” given by Dr. Finestone at his deposition was inconsistent with the definition which he adopted on his errata sheet and which he later reiterated at trial. One inference which the jury might have drawn from the change in Dr. Finestone’s testimony was, as the trial court suggested, that the physician was acting in his self interest. However, the jury was not instructed by the court that this was the only possible inference which it could draw. Indeed, the court invited the jury to consider other possible inferences and to exercise an independent judgment with regard to the physician’s credibility. This was not error.

The defendants next allege that the trial court erred when it received in evidence the Rolling Hill Hospital nursing guidelines pertaining to the administration of chemotherapeutic agents. The guidelines established the procedure to be followed by nurses during the intravenous administration of the drugs and the steps to be taken in the event of infiltration. The earliest of these guidelines had become effective in April of 1983, more than a year after the date on which Mrs. Ball had sustained injury to her arm. She offered the guidelines into evidence during an in-chambers conference between the trial judge and the parties’ attorneys. Ball contended that the guidelines were relevant to show the procedures which could or should have been employed at Rolling Hill Hospital in January of 1982 and which were then in existence at other hospitals within the Philadelphia area. The trial court ruled, over objection, that the guidelines were admissible insofar as they tended to show that Rolling Hill Hospital had fallen below standard practice followed by hospitals within the medical community.

The traditional rule in negligence cases has been that post-injury repairs, improvements or precautions are not admissible to show a lack of due care at the time of the injury. Gottfried v. American Can Co., 389 Pa.Super. 403, 409, 489 A.2d 222, 226 (1985). See: Incollingo v. Ewing, 444 Pa. 263, 274, 282 A.2d 206, 222-223 (1971); Pressler v. City of Pittsburgh, 419 Pa. 440, 443-444, 214 A.2d 616, 618 (1965); O’Malley v. Peerless Petroleum, Inc., 283 Pa.Super. 272, 289, 423 A.2d 1251, 1260 (1980). In the instant case, the Rolling Hill Hospital nursing guidelines, which had been promulgated after the injury sustained by Mrs. Ball, were offered and admitted into evidence for the sole purpose of demonstrating the hospital’s antecedent negligence in failing to adopt such procedures. We conclude that this was error.

However, not all errors committed by the trial court are grounds for a new trial. “To justify a reversal because of a ruling on evidence, the ruling must not only be technically erroneous, but it must also be harmful to the appellant.” Furey v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 325 Pa. Super. 212, 219, 472 A.2d 1083, 1087 (1984). See: Anderson v. Hughes, 417 Pa. 87, 92, 208 A.2d 789, 791 (1965); Stern v. Vic Snyder, Inc., 325 Pa.Super. 423, 433-434, 473 A.2d 139, 145 (1984). Here, the defendants were not prejudiced by the admission of the hospital nursing guidelines. The guidelines were offered and admitted into evidence outside the presence of the jury, were not exhibited or referred to by Ball before the jury, and were not sent out with the jury to be considered during its deliberations. In fact, the guidelines were mentioned only twice throughout the entire course of the trial, and each reference was made by or at the behest of defense counsel in a light favorable to the defense. Under these circumstances, no prejudice accrued to the defense as a result of the admission of the guidelines.

Prior to commencement of trial, counsel for Mrs. Ball had been permitted, over objection, to ask the following question of a panel of prospective jurors during voir dire examination:

“Are there any among you or your immediate family and, again, defining it the way I did, who are employed by a company engaged in casualty or a liability insurance business or are there any of you or members of your immediate family who are stockholders in any company which are engaged in casualty or a liability insurance business?

Defense counsel moved to have the jury panel stricken, arguing that the inquiry had improperly introduced the issue of insurance coverage into the case. This motion was denied by the trial court. The defendants contend on appeal that the trial court erred, first when it allowed plaintiffs counsel to question the prospective jurors on the issue of insurance, and again when the court later refused to strike the jury panel which had been subjected to this inquiry.

“The sole purpose of voir [dire] examinationf ] is to secure a fair, competent and impartial jury.” Bohner v. Stine, 316 Pa.Super. 426, 434, 463 A.2d 438, 442 (1983). See: Bentivoglio v. Ralston, 447 Pa. 24, 31, 288 A.2d 745, 749 (1972). To achieve this purpose, general questions should be permitted so that it can be determined whether any of the veniremen have a direct or even a contingent interest in the outcome of the litigation or the parties involved. Id.; Atene v. Lawrence, 428 Pa. 424, 428, 239 A.2d 346, 349 (1968), quoting Clay v. Western Maryland Railroad Co., 221 Pa. 439, 445-446, 70 A. 807, 809 (1908). The scope and extent of voir dire examination is within the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial court’s rulings thereon will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. See: Bohner v. Stine, supra 316 Pa.Super. at 434, 463 A.2d at 442; Lenkiewicz v. Lange, 242 Pa.Super. 87, 93, 363 A.2d 1172, 1176 (1976).

No abuse of discretion is evident in the instant case. The question put to the jury panel by plaintiff’s counsel was designed to determine whether any of the veniremen had a background in the liability insurance industry which might impair their ability to hear the evidence and decide the case impartially. The “[rjight to such examination of a prospective juror is basic to an intelligent exercise of challenges for cause or peremptory challenges.” 47 Am.Jur.2d Jury § 333. We conclude, therefore, that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to allow plaintiff’s counsel to ask prospective jurors whether they or any of their immediate relatives had ever been employed by or owned stock in a casualty insurance company. Accord: Milwaukee Gear Co. v. Charles Benjamin, Inc., 466 F.2d 588 (3d Cir.1972).

A different conclusion is not compelled by the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Bentivoglio v. Ralston, supra or by this Court’s holding in Bohner v. Stine, , supra. In Bentivoglio, the trial court had denied the plaintiff’s request to ask veniremen during voir dire examination whether anyone was (1) an employee or stockholder of a casualty company, (2) a claims adjustor, or (3) engaged as an agent in the casualty insurance business. In affirming the ruling of the trial court, the Supreme Court opined that “[i]t is significant, if not dispositive, to note that the plaintiff does not assert that the ruling of the trial court resulted in any prejudice or that the jury empanelled in the case was not fair and impartial.” Bentivoglio v. Ralston, supra 447 Pa. at 31-32, 288 A.2d at 749. Similarly, the trial court in Bohner had refused to allow plaintiff’s counsel to inquire, inter alia, whether the prospective jurors or members of their families were claims adjustors for or stockholders in a casualty or liability insurance company. A panel of this Court held that the trial court had not abused its discretion by denying the proposed inquiries in view of the fact that the plaintiff had been permitted to ask specifically whether any panel member was employed by an insurance company, and whether any was in the business of investigating claims. Bohner v. Stine, supra 316 Pa.Super. at 435, 463 A.2d at 442-443.

The decisions in Bentivoglio and Bohner do not stand for the proposition that a court abuses its discretion by allowing prospective jurors to be examined concerning their connections with the insurance industry. Rather, they demonstrate that the decision as to whether to allow such an inquiry is within the discretion of the trial court and should depend upon the unique circumstances of each case. These decisions, therefore, do not control the instant case. Our review of the record discloses no abuse of discretion by the trial court. It follows that the court also did not err when it refused to strike the jury panel which had been exposed to this inquiry.

Ida Ball argues in a cross-appeal that the trial court erred by refusing to award her post-judgment interest at the prime rate or, in the alternative, at the rate of ten percent. This argument is lacking in merit.

The Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, No. 142, § 2, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8101 provides as follows:

Except as otherwise provided by another statute, a judgment for a specific sum of money shall bear interest at the lawful rate from the date of the verdict or award, or from the date of the judgment, if the judgment is not entered upon a verdict or award.

The legal rate of interest is established by the Act of January 30, 1974, P.L. 13, No. 6, § 202, 41 Pa.S.A. § 202, as follows:

Reference in any law or document enacted or executed heretofore or hereafter to “legal rate of interest” and reference in any document to an obligation to pay a sum of money “with interest” without specification of the applicable rate shall be construed to refer to the rate of interest-of six per cent per annum.

These statutory provisions evince a clear intention on the part of the legislature to establish a post-judgment interest rate of six percent per annum for all actions at law. Only in an equitable action for restitution does a court have discretion to award interest in an amount in excess of six percent per annum. See: Sack v. Feinman, 489 Pa. 152, 413 A.2d 1059 (1980); Murray Hill Estates, Inc. v. Bastin, 442 Pa. 405, 276 A.2d 542 (1971); Rizzo v. Haines, 357 Pa.Super. 57, 515 A.2d 321 (1986). See also: Peterson v. Crown Financial Corp., 661 F.2d 287 (3d Cir.1981); Lexington Insurance Co. v. Abington Co., 621 F.Supp. 18 (E.D.Pa.1985). Because the action brought by Mrs. Ball was not for restitution, but for an award of damages for personal injury, she was entitled to post-judgment interest at the rate of six percent per annum. To award interest to Mrs. Ball at a rate exceeding the statutorily created rate of six percent would be to violate the mandate of a coordinate branch of our government. This we cannot and will not do. The reform in this area urged by Mrs. Ball is not a matter of judicial concern, but is solely within the province of the legislature. See: Daset Mining Corp. v. Industrial Fuels Corp., 326 Pa.Super. 14, 39, 473 A.2d 584, 597 (1984).

Judgment affirmed.

BECK and JOHNSON, JJ. concur in the result.

      . Also named as defendants were nurse Edith DiStefano, who assisted Dr. Finestone in administering the chemotherapeutic drugs to Mrs. Ball; William Carlson, a physician’s assistant who had prepared Mrs. Ball’s intravenous (IV) line; and Dr. Kenneth Algazy, Mrs. Ball’s treating oncologist who had recommended treatment after infiltation had occurred. These parties were dismissed on a motion for non-suit at the close of the defendants’ case.

      . The trial court added damages for delay, and its action has not been preserved as an issue in this appeal.

      . Also missing from the record is a transcript of the deposition testimony of Dr. Cornfield which had been presented in court on a daily copy basis. Defendants assert in a sub-issue to their first argument that the trial court, during its jury charge, erroneously summarized the substance of the doctor’s testimony. - We are unable to conduct a meaningful review of this issue because of the absence of the transcript of Dr. Cornfield’s testimony. Although portions of the physician’s testimony have been reproduced in Ball’s brief, these portions are not a part of the record and cannot be considered by this Court in resolving the issues raised on appeal by the parties. See: McFarlane v. Hickman, 342 Pa.Super. 240, 244 n. 1, 492 A.2d 740, 742 n. 1 (1985); New London Oil Co. v. Ziegler, 336 Pa.Super. 380, 384, 485 A.2d 1131, 1133 (1984); Auman v. Juchniewitz, 312 Pa.Super. 98, 100, 458 A.2d 254, 255 (1983). An examination of the excerpted portions of Dr. Cornfield’s testimony which were reproduced in Ball’s brief discloses, in any event, that the trial court’s characterization thereof in its instructions was correct.

      . The first reference occurred during defense counsel’s cross-examination of Dr. Viner who testified that he had no knowledge or whether the hospital had employed such guidelines at the time of Ball’s injury; the second was made during counsel’s closing argument in which he emphasized the irrelevance of nursing guidelines to the issue of Dr. Finestone’s liability.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: OLSZEWSKI, Judge:

license: Public Domain

text:
    518 A.2d 1246
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Jeffrey TILLIA, Appellant.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued Sept. 4, 1986.
    Filed Dec. 16, 1986.

      William R. Lee, Scranton, for appellant.
    Michael Basista, Assistant District Attorney, Scranton, for Com., appellee.
    Before: WICKERSHAM, OLSZEWSKI and BECK, JJ.

      . Appellant was found not guilty of homicide by motor vehicle while driving at an unsafe speed, 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sec. 3732.

   OLSZEWSKI, Judge:

This is a direct appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed following a jury trial at which appellant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sec. 3731(a)(1), (4) (Purdons Supp.1986) and homicide by motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sec. 3735 (Purdons Supp.1986). Following his conviction and the denial of post-verdict motions, appellant brought the instant appeal alleging six claims of error committed by the trial court. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment.

I.

The Commonwealth filed an information charging appellant with the crimes of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sec. 3731(a)(1), (4); homicide by motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sec. 3735; and homicide by motor vehicle while driving at an unsafe speed, 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sec. 3732. Appellant’s first contention is that the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to amend the information to charge the following offenses: operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance or alcohol, 75 Pa.Cons.Stat. Ann. Sec. 3731(a)(1), (4); homicide by motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sec. 3735; and homicide by motor vehicle while driving at an unsafe speed, 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sec. 3732. Appellant argues that the amendment was impermissible under Pa.R.Crim.P. 229 because different offenses were added to the information. We disagree.

Rule 229 provides:

Rule 229. Amendment of Information
The court may allow an information to be amended when there is a defect in form, the description of the offense, the description of any person or any property, or the date charged, provided the information as amended does not charge an additional or different offense. Upon amendment the court may grant such postponement of trial or other relief as is necessary in the interests of justice.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 229. In Commonwealth v. Stanley, 265 Pa. Super. 194, 401 A.2d 1166 (1979), this Court articulated the following guidelines for assessing the propriety of permitting such an amendment:

(T)he courts of this Commonwealth employ the test of whether the crimes specified in the original indictment or information involve the same basic elements and evolved out of the same factual situation as the crimes specified in the amended indictment or information. If so, then the defendant is deemed to have been placed on notice regarding his alleged criminal conduct. If, however, the amended provision alleges a different set of events, or the elements or defenses to the amended crime are materially different from the elements or defenses to the crime originally charged, such that the defendant would be prejudiced by the change, then the amendment is not permitted.

Stanley, 265 Pa.Super. at 212-213, 401 A.2d at 1175 (footnotes omitted). The purpose of Rule 229 is to insure that a defendant is notified of the charges against him, and to avoid prejudice by prohibiting last minute additions of which the defendant is uninformed. Stanley, 265 Pa.Super. at 212, 401 A.2d at 1175.

Although a literal reading of Rule 229 appears to support appellant’s contention, we fail to see any prejudice to appellant in the allowance of the amendment. The conduct underlying the offenses, the events, and the penalty for the offenses are identical. Appellant had notice of the general charges nine months prior to trial when, in December of 1983, the arrest warrant was issued, and he was given two months notice of the specific offenses when, in July of 1984, the information was amended. Further, the record indicates that a continuance was granted thereby extending the preparation time before trial. The purpose and procedure of Rule 229 were satisfied as appellant had sufficient notice and adequate time to prepare his case.

Appellant argues, however, that Commonwealth v. Ply-bon, 279 Pa.Super. 329, 421 A.2d 224 (1980) is controlling. Indeed, that case is factually similar to the matter at hand. In Plybon, the original information charged the defendant with violating 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sec. 3731 (a)(3), driving under the combined influence of alcohol and a controlled substance. At trial, the Commonwealth sought to amend the information to include the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol, Sec. 3731(a)(1). The Court held that the defendant was prejudiced by the amendment because the elements of, and the defenses to, the amended charge would have materially altered the original information. Plybon, 279 Pa.Super. at 333, 421 A.2d at 225-226.

Appellant’s reliance on Plybon is misplaced. In that case, the Commonwealth moved to amend only after it had rested its case and the defendant had demurred. Plybon, 279 Pa.Super. at 332, 421 A.2d at 225. Hence, the defendant had neither adequate notice of the amendment, nor time to prepare a defense to the amended charges. We believe that this crucial distinction between the two cases renders Plybon inapplicable.

Appellant also argues that he was prejudiced by the amendment because the evidence regarding the amended offenses was submitted to the jury and may have influenced the verdict. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive in view of the fact that the court sustained his demurrer as to the charges concerning driving under the influence of a controlled substance and driving under the combined influence of a controlled substance and alcohol. Thus, only the charges listed in the original information were submitted to the jury. Accordingly, the lower court committed no error by granting the Commonwealth’s motion to amend.

II.

Appellant’s second contention is that the trial court erred in not suppressing the results of the blood alcohol test. Specifically, appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to attempt to preserve the blood sample for independent analysis.

The stipulation of facts entered into between the Commonwealth and appellant indicated that a blood sample was taken from appellant at a medical center in the early morning hours of October 16, 1983, and delivered to the state police barracks. According to the stipulation, if a Commonwealth criminologist would have testified, he would have stated that the percentage of blood alcohol from the test was 0.15%. Pursuant to state policy, the blood sample was destroyed either the same day of the testing or the next day. The warrant for the appellant’s arrest was not issued until December 9, 1983.

The statute authorizing the chemical testing procedures for blood alcohol content provides that the test result be made available to the defendant and permits the defendant to request that his/her own physician perform an additional, independent test. 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sec. 1547(g), (h) (Purdons Supp.1986). Appellant argues that because the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure do not allow any discovery of Commonwealth evidence until after the information is filed, it would have been impossible for him to request that the blood sample be preserved for independent analysis as the sample had already been destroyed. Appellant also asserts that because a test result indicating a blood alcohol level of 0.10% or more is a per se finding of intoxication, the Commonwealth should be required to take reasonable steps to preserve the blood sample for independent testing.

The same argument, albeit in a different context, has been rejected in both the Supreme Court of the United States and this Court. In California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984), a unanimous Court established the standard whereby evidence is constitutionally required to be preserved for disclosure. Such evidence must “(1) (possess) an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and (2) also be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means.” Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 489, 104 S.Ct. at 2534. Further, there must be no indication that the authorities destroyed the evidence in order to circumvent the disclosure requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Trombetta, 467 at 488, 104 S.Ct. at 2534. Finding none of the requirements satisfied, the Court held that due process does not require the police to save a sample from a breathilyzer for independent testing and inspection. Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 491, 104 S.Ct. at 2535. When the same issue was presented before this Court, we concluded that the due process protections of the Pennsylvania Constitution required no more than those afforded by the federal constitution. Commonwealth v. Gamber, 352 Pa.Super. 36, 41, 506 A.2d 1324, 1327 (1986). Hence, we hold that the Commonwealth was not required to preserve a breath sample used in administering an intoxilyzer test. Gamber, 352 Pa.Super. at 41, 506 A.2d at 1328.

The rationale underlying both Trombetta and Gamber is equally applicable in the present case. In applying the guidelines used in those cases, we look to the circumstance leading to the destruction of the blood sample. Appellant does not contend, nor do we find any evidence in the record, that the Pennsylvania State Police consciously destroyed appellant’s blood sample in order to prevent discovery of exculpatory matter. Rather, the blood sample was destroyed pursuant to an established policy of the authorities. See Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 488, 104 S.Ct. at 2534 (destruction of sample pursuant to departmental policy did not circumvent Brady requirement).

Under the guidelines of Trombetta, appellant’s blood sample must be material in that its exculpatory nature must be apparent prior to its destruction and it must be irreplaceable before a constitutional error arises. It is extremely unlikely that the test sample of appellant’s blood would have been exculpatory. The blood sample was drawn at a medical center pursuant to the requirements of 75 Pa.Cons. Stat.Ann. Sec. 1547(c), and the requirements of the Clinical Laboratory Act, 35 Pa.Stat.Ann. Secs. 2151-2165 (Purdons 1977). The test itself was performed by a criminologist at the police laboratory using a gas chromotographer, an accepted testing device. The criminologist testified as to both the accuracy and reliability of the device, as well as the safeguards and procedures used. (N.T. 238-240). In particular, the criminologist testified that a more accurate test result would not have been obtained if two tests had been administered. (N.T. 242). Given that the gas chromo-tography analysis indicated appellant’s blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit, it is more likely that the blood sample provided inculpatory, not exculpatory, evidence. Further, appellant’s due process rights were preserved during trial. Appellant had ample opportunity, and indeed, he attempted to undermine the accuracy and reliability of the test device and procedures, as well as the credibility of the analyst.

We reiterate that the Due Process Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution requires that the Commonwealth disclose favorable evidence that is material to either the guilt or punishment of a defendant. Pa. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 9; Gamber, 352 Pa.Super. at 41-42, 506 A.2d at 1327. Our decision today is in keeping with that constitutional mandate. The applicable statute does not require that the Commonwealth preserve test samples for independent analysis. See 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sec. 1547. Section 1547 only requires that the test results be available to a defendant and permits the party to request that his/her own physician perform the test. 75 Pa.Cons.Stat. Sec. 1547(g). In effect, a test sample serves a limited function; it is merely the “raw data” which is analyzed in the laboratory. See Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 487, 104 S.Ct. at 2533. Indeed, appellant does not contend that had the blood sample been preserved, it would have been introduced into evidence at trial. The test result, not the test sample, is the material evidence which is determinative of a defendant’s guilt or punishment. Thus, due process requires that the Commonwealth provide to a defendant the result of the test and the opportunity to question the reliability or accuracy of the test result. Because appellant had ample opportunity to scrutinize the reliability of the test result, the accuracy of the testing procedures and equipment, and the credibility of the analyst, we conclude that due process was satisfied.

III.

Appellant next contends that the trial court erred in permitting hearsay testimony to be admitted into evidence. He argues that the testimony by a Commonwealth witness regarding the decedent’s statements prior to the accident was inadmissible hearsay and not subject to the state of mind exception.

On direct examination, a Commonwealth witness testified to the following:

Q. How is that you came about to follow (the decedent) home in the first place?
A. Well, he was tellin’ me that he didn’t want to drive that evening. So he said, “Why don’t you follow me home so I can have a good time here, you know, stay here at the bar.”
Q. Okay. And, in fact, you did follow him home; did you not?
A. Yes, I did.
# * * * *
Q. Tom, going back to the time you gave (the decedent) a ride, you indicated on the way to his house, that he wanted a ride so he didn’t have to drive that night?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he indicate to you, if anything, on the way back to the bar?
A. He said he didn’t have to worry about drivin’ that night, he could get drunk; he didn’t have to worry about gettin’ in any trouble at all. He didn’t want to drive at all. That’s what he was tellin’ me. That’s why he wanted to take his car home.
Q. Did you take anyone else home that night?,
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. But Joe made the point that he wanted to take his car home; did he not?
A. Yes, he did, because he asked me — about 5:00, 5:30, he asked me to take him home before it got too late, drop off his car so he could go back to the bar.

(N.T. 259, 265-266).

The admissibility of these statements is significant because the question of whether appellant or the decedent was driving the automobile is in issue. Appellant maintains that the statements were used to prove the truth of the matter; namely, that because the decedent stated he did not want to drive that evening he, in fact, did not drive appellant’s car. ,

A fair reading of the testimony indicates that the decedent’s statements were being offered to prove the truth of the facts contained therein, not merely to prove the fact that the statements were made. In other words, the Commonwealth’s purpose was to prove that the decedent intended to continue drinking at a bar, and not to drive his car that evening. Thus, the decedent’s statements are hearsay.

A declarant’s out-of-court' statement relating to his reason or intention in performing an act made at or near the time of acting is admissible, however, under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. Commonwealth v. Henderson, 324 Pa.Super. 538, 545-547, 472 A.2d 211, 214-216 (1984).

The decedent’s hearsay statements clearly fall within this exception to the hearsay rule. Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the statements do not establish that decedent, in fact, was driving the vehicle. The statements merely indicate that it was the decedent’s intent to continue drinking and not to drive his vehicle that evening. Accordingly, the testimony was properly admitted hearsay pursuant to the state of mind exception.

IV.

We also reject appellant's contention that the court permitted the Commonwealth’s attorney to make improper comments during closing argument.

Appellant takes issue with two statements made by the prosecutor. First, appellant contends that the prosecutor made a request for sympathy from the jury. During closing argument, the Commonwealth’s attorney stated:

Have you ever heard one witness say that Jeffrey Tillia (appellant), from the time of that accident to the time he was at the hospital, was remorseful over the condition of (the decedent); that he was concerned; that he kept asking and asking about his friend who was in the car accident with him? Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit there is no mention as to that by the defendant. The only thing he wanted to get out was that he wasn’t driving.

(R. 26a-27a). The court overruled appellant’s objection and denied his motion for a mistrial.

Although a prosecutor’s personal opinion regarding a defendant’s guilt, credibility, or trial strategy are beyond the scope of permissiveness, “the prosecution may argue reasonable inferences from the facts and comment upon the credibility of the witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 341 Pa.Super. 564, 572, 492 A.2d 9, 13 (1985) (citations omitted). Only those remarks which bias the minds of the jury necessitate a new trial. Commonwealth v. Williams, 346 Pa.Super. 456, 460, 499 A.2d 1089, 1091 (1985), quoting, Commonwealth v. Pinder, 310 Pa.Super. 56, 67-68, 456 A.2d 179, 185 (1983). Because the effects of such remarks depend largely on the atmosphere at trial, the question of whether such statements warrant a new trial is left to the trial court which can evaluate the tone of the remarks and reactions of the jury. Williams, 346 Pa.Super. at 460, 499 A.2d at 1091.

After scrutinizing the prosecutor’s closing argument, we find nothing which convinces us that the trial court improperly denied appellant’s motion for a mistrial. Whether or not appellant expressed remorse is irrelevant to the determination of guilt. Further, any possible prejudice resulting from the statement was neutralized by the comprehensive curative instruction to the jury to disregard the remark.

Secondly, appellant argues that the prosecutor’s comment regarding appellant’s concern with the speed limit was an improper inference. During closing argument, the prosecutor stated:

Think about what the defendant is telling you, Ladies and Gentlemen. Why does the defendant care if it was 35, 45 or 55 (miles per hour speed limit) at the scene of the accident? And why would they take pictures showing you that at the scene of the accident, there’s a 35-mile-an-hour zone? Use your common sense. Why do they care what the speed limit is? If Joseph Poll (the decedent) was driving that vehicle, it doesn’t matter if the speed limit was 10 miles an hour. The defendant wouldn’t be guilty of it; would he? But the defendant certainly would be concerned what the speed limit was if he was driving the vehicle, because it’s one of the counts of homicide by vehicle, is that he was not in compliance with the traffic laws, that being at a safe speed. So, certainly, he would want to prove that at that point, a 35-mile-an-hour zone, “if I was driving, I’m not guilty of homicide by vehicle for safe speed.” But it tells you something else also, Ladies and Gentlemen. Who was driving the vehicle.

(N.T. 572-573).

This comment cannot be said to have deprived appellant of a fair trial by inciting bias or prejudice in the minds of the jury. The statement was an inference based upon the testimony, not an expression of the prosecutor’s personal opinion or belief as to appellant’s guilt or credibility. Further, we note again that the court gave an explicit cautionary jury instruction which cured the prejudice, if any, of this remark. In that instruction, the court specifically referred to counsel’s argument and admonished the jury that regardless of who was driving the vehicle that evening, the Commonwealth must prove all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of this curative instruction and of the trial court’s ability to better evaluate the effect of the comment on the jury, we conclude that the prosecutor’s statements were within the realm of permissible argument.

V.

Appellant’s fifth contention is that the verdict was against the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Appellant’s contention is unpreserved on the record but, nonetheless, unpersuasive on the merits.

Appellant raised this contention in boilerplate fashion in his motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial. This court has consistently held that a post-verdict motion, stating merely that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict or that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, “will preserve no issue for appellate review unless the motion goes on to specify in what respect the evidence was insufficient, or why the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Holmes, 315 Pa.Super. 256, 259-260, 461 A.2d 1268, 1270 (1983) (e¡n banc) (emphasis in original). Appellant’s boilerplate allegations do not preserve the issues here before us.

Despite the technical forfeiture of these issues, we will examine the merits of appellant’s argument because the trial court has examined the matter in detail. Based upon our examination of the record, we affirm the trial court’s finding that the verdict was not against the weight and sufficiency of the evidence.

In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict, we are guided by the following standard:

Whether accepting as true all of the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, the trier of fact could have found that each element of the offenses charged was supported by evidence and inferences sufficient in law to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Gamber, 352 Pa.Super. 36, 44, 506 A.2d 1324, 1329 (1986), quoting, Commonwealth v. Lovette, 498 Pa. 665, 450 A.2d 975 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1178, 103 S.Ct. 830, 74 L.Ed.2d 1025 (1983). The determination of whether to grant a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and is reviewable for an abuse of that discretion. Commonwealth v. Starks, 298 Pa.Super. 213, 216, 444 A.2d 736, 738 (1982).

In the instant case, the jury found appellant guilty of homicide by motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. In order to support the verdict, the Commonwealth must prove that appellant was driving a motor vehicle, that he was intoxicated during that time, and that a death was the unintentional result of his driving. 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Secs. 3735, 3731(a)(1), (4). Appellant’s primary contention is that the evidence does not establish that he was driving the vehicle at the time the death occurred.

Keeping in mind that we must accept all of the evidence presented by the Commonwealth as true, Gamber, 352 Pa.Super. at 44, 506 A.2d at 1329, we will summarize the testimony. The initial testimony supporting the conclusion that appellant was driving at the time of the accident was given by Joseph Soltis. Soltis was the first person to arrive at the scene of the accident. He testified that the car was resting on the passenger side door and that the “blond hair man” was directly on top of the decedent. (N.T. 35-36). Soltis went on to state that the decedent’s head was up against the passenger side of the car. (N.T. 38-40). Soltis also testified that he found a pair of eyeglasses directly behind the driver’s seat, (N.T. 43-44), and that he handed the glasses to appellant who immediately put them on. (N.T. 44-45). He also testified that appellant would just have had to straighten up to be completely on the driver’s side. (N.T. 66).

The next witness to confirm Soltis’s testimony was Daniel Lester, who was one of the next persons to arrive at the scene. He testified that appellant’s feet were on the driver’s side of the transmission hump, (N.T. 85), and that, generally, appellant was in the driver’s position. (N.T. 91, 94).

The next collaborating witness was Timothy Roland, an employee of the medical center, who was called to the scene of the accident to remove the decedent from the crash. Roland stated that the decedent was on the passenger side. (N.T. 142, 168).

Other witnesses that were in appellant’s and decedent’s company on the day of the accident testified to the fact that the decedent brought his car home early in the evening. Further testimony revealed that decedent indicated he did not want to drive that day. (N.T. 259, 265-266). Clearly, the above testimony, including testimony by the tow truck driver who stated that decedent’s bandana was lodged on the far passenger side (N.T. 300), is more than sufficient to establish that appellant was driving.

The next element which must be proven is that appellant was under the influence of alcohol. The first witness to establish this was police officer George Price. At the accident scene he described appellant’s condition as being intoxicated. (N.T. 106). It was at officer Price’s request and with appellant’s consent that Dr. Schill, the emergency room doctor drew blood from appellant for a blood alcohol test. (N.T. 187). The results of that blood alcohol test showed that appellant had a blood alcohol level of 0.15%, (N.T. 239), well above the 0.10% blood alcohol level which gives rise to a presumption of intoxication.

There were also witnesses who testified that appellant had been drinking all day. (N.T. 269). Some of his companions saw him drinking shots of whiskey. (N.T. 323). Finally, a half empty wine bottle and beer bottles were recovered immediately outside the car and a beer bottle was found inside the car at the accident scene. (N.T. 351). There is more than sufficient testimony to prove that appellant was under the influence of alcohol.

Having been presented with this evidence, the jury reasonably could have found the elements of the offenses were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, appellant’s contentions regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and the verdict are without merit.

VI

Appellant’s final contention is that the delay of nineteen months from the time of verdict until sentencing denied appellant his constitutional right to a speedy trial and violated both Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123 and Lackawanna County Local Rule 1123.

Appellant was convicted by a jury on September 30, 1984. After obtaining a transcript, appellant filed his brief in support of post-verdict motions on April 4, 1985. Pursuant to Lackawanna County Local Rule 1123(d), the Commonwealth’s brief was due within twenty days of that date. Appellant alleges that on May 15, 1985, the Commonwealth requested that the scheduled argument be continued. A new briefing schedule was allegedly set up with the Commonwealth’s brief due on October 11, 1985, and argument on October 21, 1985. Appellant maintains that on October 21, 1985, the Commonwealth, which had not filed a brief, asked that argument again be continued for a few days.

On November 14, 1985, appellant filed an additional post-verdict motion alleging a speedy trial violation and a violation of both Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123 and Lackawanna County Local Rule 1123. The Commonwealth was ordered to respond by December 9, 1985, and oral argument was scheduled to be held on December 13, 1985. The Commonwealth filed its brief in opposition to appellant’s post-verdict motions on November 27, 1985. The motions were denied on February 4, 1986, and appellant was sentenced on April 4, 1986.

In addressing the question now raised, the trial court held that the issue was moot because the Commonwealth eventually did file its brief. The trial court also suggested that a more appropriate remedy would have been a rule to show cause why the Commonwealth’s attorney should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123.

We agree with the trial court that contempt sanctions may be warranted where the Commonwealth ignores an order of the court issued pursuant to the Pennsylvania and local rules of procedure. The trial court’s summary disposition of this matter, however, does not resolve the constitutional claim raised by appellant, namely, that an extended delay between the time verdict was entered and sentencing denied appellant his right to a speedy trial.

In Commonwealth v. Glover, 500 Pa. 524, 458 A.2d 935 (1983), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated:

Neither this Court nor the United States Supreme Court has expressly held that the disposition of post-verdict motions or sentencing is a part of trial for Sixth Amendment purposes. However, we will assume arguen-do that disposition of post-verdict motions and sentencing are a part of trial for purposes of defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
In determining whether a defendant’s constitutional speedy trial right has been violated, it must first be determined whether the delay itself is sufficient to trigger further inquiry. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); Jones v. Commonwealth, 495 Pa. 490, 434 A.2d 1197 (1981). If the delay is sufficient to trigger further inquiry, the reviewing court must balance the length of the delay with the reason for the delay, the defendant’s timely assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and any resulting prejudice to the interest protected by the right to a speedy trial. Barker v. Wingo, supra; Commonwealth v. Pounds, 490 Pa. 621, 417 A.2d 597 (1980).

Commonwealth v. Glover, 500 Pa. at 527-528, 458 A.2d at 937 (footnote omitted).

In the instant case, there was nearly a nineteen month delay between the time the verdict was entered and the time appellant was sentenced. This time period did not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment for which appellant was convicted. Hence, the delay was not prima facia invalid. See Commonwealth v. Pounds, 490 Pa. 621, 627-628, 417 A.2d 597, 600 (1980). Nor is there evidence that the Commonwealth deliberately delayed sentencing in order to force appellant into a compromising position. Our first question, then, is whether the length of the delay is sufficient to warrant further scrutiny. In doing so, we note that the Supreme Court has already determined that a two-year delay triggered further scrutiny. Pounds, 490 Pa. at 628, 417 A.2d at 600. See Commonwealth v. Glover, 500 Pa. 524, 458 A.2d 935 (1983) (forty-nine month delay deserved inquiry). We are reminded that our inquiry into the alleged violation of the right to a speedy trial depends upon the circumstances of each case. Pounds, 490 Pa. at 627, 417 A.2d at 599. Hence, we decline to fix a time period which would automatically determine whether a closer examination of the facts is warranted. Rather, we find that the nineteen month delay in the instant case is sufficient to justify such an examination.

Having made this initial determination, we approach the next level of the inquiry by isolating the first of the four factors — the length of the delay. As noted before, there was nearly a nineteen month delay between the time of the verdict and the sentencing. We are not convinced that such a delay is tantamount to a violation of appellant’s right.

Unlike the case for a pre-trial delay, some delay before sentencing is more tolerable here because a determination of guilt has already been made. Whether the length of the delay in this case is intolerable depends upon the circumstances of each case. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-531, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). We are not so appalled by the length of the delay here, and appellant fails to isolate any specific reasons supporting his claim that the delay was overly long. See, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S.Ct. at 2192 (citing example). In addition, we note that appellant was free on bail during this time. Based upon the circumstances present here, we will weigh the first Glover factor in favor of the Commonwealth.

The second factor to be examined is the justification for the delay. The record indicates that seven months of the delay is attributed to satisfying appellant’s request for a transcript. We are cognizant of the fact that judicial resources are limited and that the preparation of a transcript inevitably requires some time. For this reason, we cannot fault the Commonwealth for failing to deliver a transcript immediately subsequent to the trial. The Commonwealth fails, however, to offer any excuse for the remaining twelve months’ delay. Consequently, the one year delay will be weighed against the Commonwealth.

The third factor questions whether appellant asserted his Sixth Amendment right without unreasonable delay by a timely request for the disposition of his post-verdict motions. Appellant did not raise this contention until the Commonwealth had missed the second briefing deadline (November 1985), more than five months after argument was first scheduled (May 1985). We do not characterize appellant’s actions as timely, nor would we expect appellant to request a speedy disposition of his motions as appellant was released on bail pending the trial court’s ruling and sentencing. Further, we note that once appellant asserted his right, his motions were disposed of within three months and he was sentenced shortly thereafter. Accordingly, we will weigh this factor against appellant.

The final factor questions whether appellant was prejudiced by the delay. Appellant contends he was prejudiced because he was: (1) forced to suffer anxiety and depression; (2) unable to secure employment or establish a business due to his potential imprisonment; (3) unable to fulfill his obligations under a child support order; and (4) unable to make marriage plans. These interests are of a type which the Sixth Amendment was designed to protect. Pounds, 490 Pa. at 629 n. 10, 417 A.2d at 601 n. 10.

Balancing these four factors, we find appellant’s claim of a constitutional violation is without merit. Three factors— the relatively short delay attributed to the Commonwealth (seven months), appellant’s failure to promptly assert his claim (accounting for five months’ delay), and the lack of deliberativeness on the part of the Commonwealth — weigh heavily against the prejudice caused by the delay. Thus, we conclude that appellant was not denied his right to a speedy trial.

For all the reasons stated above, judgment of sentence is affirmed.

      . A criminologist did, in fact, testify that the blood contained .15% alcohol (N.T. 239).

      . Section 1547 provides in part:
      (g) Test results available to defendant. — Upon the request of the person tested, the results of any chemical test shall be made available to him or his attorney.
      (h) Test by personal physician. — The person tested shall be permitted to have a physician of his own choosing administer an additional breath, blood or urine chemical test and the results of the test shall also be admissible in evidence. The chemical testing given at the direction of the police officer shall not be delayed by a person’s attempt to obtain an additional test.

        75 Pa.Cons.Stats.Ann. Sec. 1547(g), (h).

      . We note that some courts have required the preservation of test samples. See e.g., Oshrin v. Coulter, 142 Ariz. 109, 688 P.2d 1001 (1985) (due process requires preservation of breath sample); Anchorage v. Serrano, 649 P.2d 256 (Alaska Ct.App.1982) (due process requires the prosecutor make reasonable efforts to preserve a breath sample or take steps to allow defendant to verify test results; defendant must be given an opportunity to secure independent testing); Baca v. Smith, 124 Ariz. 353, 604 P.2d 617 (1979) (defendant must be advised of right to have second test sample preserved, but must make demand that the second sample be taken and, if convicted, pay the resultant expenses); Garcia v. District Court, 197 Colo. 38, 589 P.2d 924 (1979) (defendant must be given sample of breath in a form which permits independent testing); People v. Hitch, 12 Cal.3d 641, 527 P.2d 361, 117 Cal.Rptr. 9 (1974) (due process requires prosecutor to preserve and disclose breath sample); cf. Howard v. Coffer, 150 Ga.App. 579, 258 S.E.2d 195 (1979), citing, Ga.Code Ann. Sec. 68A-902.1(a)(3) (authorities must provide defendant with notice of right to independent test).
      Other courts have expressly found that there is no duty to preserve test samples. See e.g., United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir.1986) (failure to preserve currency not a due process violation); State v. Young, 228 Kan. 355, 614 P.2d 441 (1980) (statute not require preservation of breath sample); Palmer v. State, 604 P.2d 1106 (Alaska 1979) (defendant need not be advised of right to independent test of breath sample) and cases cited therein.

      . Appellant refers to Commonwealth v. Koebach, 40 Lehigh L.J. 503 (1984), in which the court held that the Commonwealth must take reasonable steps to preserve the defendant’s blood sample for independent analysis. That decision is not inconsistent with the instant case. In Koebach, the defendant made an informal discovery request for the blood sample prior to the time the sample was destroyed. Koebach, 40 Lehigh L.J. at 505. In effect, the authorities appeared to act in order to circumvent the discovery request. Such is not the case here.

      . Testimony indicated that although the blood samples could have been preserved for months if refrigerated, the samples are destroyed pursuant to official policy because of the lack of proper storage facilities and the safety problems involved with the storage of blood. (N.T. 226-28, 243-44.)

      . Section 1547(c) provides:
      (c) Test results admissible in evidence. — In any summary proceeding or criminal proceeding in which the defendant is charged with a violation of section 3731 or any other violation of this title arising out of the same action, the amount of alcohol or controlled substance in the defendant's blood, as shown by chemical testing of the person’s breath, blood or urine, which tests were conducted by qualified persons using approved equipment, shall be admissible in evidence.
      (1) Chemical tests of breath shall be performed on devices approved by the Department of Health using procedures prescribed jointly by regulations of the departments of Health and Transportation. Devices shall have been calibrated and tested for accuracy within a period of time and in a manner specified by regulations of the Departments of Health and Transportation. For purposes of breath testing, a qualified person means a person who has fulfilled the training requirement in the use of the equipment in a training program approved by the Departments of Health and Transportation. A certificate or log showing that a device was calibrated and tested for accuracy and that the device was accurate shall be presumptive evidence of those facts in every proceeding in which a violation of this title is charged.
      (2) Chemical tests of blood or urine shall be performed by a clinical laboratory licensed and approved by the Department of Health for this purpose using procedures and equipment prescribed by the Department of Health. For purposes of blood and urine testing, qualified person means an individual who is authorized to perform those chemical tests under the act of September 26, 1951 (P.L.1539, No. 389), known as "The Clinical Laboratory Act.”
      75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. Sec. 1547(c).

      . For this reason, our decision today is not in conflict with Commonwealth v. Arenella, 306 Pa.Super. 119, 452 A.2d 243 (1982), in which this Court held, pursuant to former Pa.R.Crim.P. 310, that evidence alleged to be marijuana must be preserved for independent analysis. In Arenella, the marijuana was the evidence to be admitted into evidence. In the present case, the blood test result, not the blood sample, was admitted into evidence. Cf. Commonwealth v. Sheppard, 341 Pa.Super. 403, 491 A.2d 879 (1985) (Commonwealth’s failure to preserve a photographic array violated due process).
      Rather, our holding today is in keeping with prior decisions governing the suppression of evidence due to the destruction of the evidence related to it. For example, in Commonwealth v. Haber, 351 Pa.Super. 79, 505 A.2d 273 (1986), we stated:
      (I)n order for the destruction of the notes to be a violation meriting a mistrial, proof is required of the following: suppression of evidence by the prosecution after a request by the defense; the favorable character of the evidence for the defense; and the materiality of the evidence. [Commonwealth v. ] York, Id., 319 Pa.Super. [13] at 18, 465 A.2d [1028] at 1029 [1983].

        Haber, 351 Pa.Super. at 87, 505 A.2d at 278.

      . Although there is no objection on the record to this testimony, we note that appellant’s pre-trial motion in limine was denied.

      . The Commonwealth does not oppose this contention.

      . Lackawanna County Local Rule 1123 provides in part:
      (d) Within twenty (20) days after the filing of Defendant’s Briefs, unless the time be extended by the Trial Judge for cause shown, the District Attorney shall file Reply Briefs and serve Counsel for Defendant and the Trial Judge. Upon the filing of Defendant’s Briefs or at the expiration of the thirty (30) day period allowed for filing same, the District Attorney, with the concurrence of the Court Administrator, shall list the case for Argument.
      (e) Should any party default in filing briefs or seeking extensions, then the court may take such action as it deems proper.

      . Appellant notes that the Commonwealth’s brief was due on May 10, 1985, with argument scheduled for May 15, 1985. We are unable to confirm these dates or the dates which immediately follow as the record does not include the scheduling orders. We note, however, that the trial court did not take issue with appellant’s presentation of these events.

      . Rule 1123 provides in relevant part:
      Argument, a hearing, or both shall be scheduled and heard promptly after such motions are filed.
      Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123.


author: BECK, Judge:

text:
    518 A.2d 1258
    In the Interest of Lloyd SALADIN. Appeal of Lloyd SALADIN.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued May 28, 1986.
    Filed Dec. 17, 1986.

      Laura Gardner Webster, Assistant Public Defender, Philadelphia, for appellant.
    Before WIEAND, BECK and KELLY, JJ.
   BECK, Judge:

At appellant’s delinquency hearing, counsel for the juvenile advised the court that a conflict of interest prevented him from effectively cross-examining a prosecution witness. He orally moved to withdraw as counsel.

The issue before us is whether the trial court erred by insisting that counsel continue to represent appellant under these circumstances. We find that the trial court abused its discretion. We vacate judgment and remand for a new hearing.

I.

This case concerns the legal rights of two juveniles, the appellant Lloyd Saladin, and the prosecution witness, Lewis Williams. On October 15, 1985, Saladin allegedly threatened to cut Williams with a broken bottle unless Williams handed over his jacket. Saladin was charged with Robbery, Theft, and Possession of an Instrument of Crime. Brad Bridge of the Defender Association of Philadelphia was appointed counsel for Saladin, and an adjudicatory hearing was scheduled in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

On the morning of the hearing, Mr. Bridge informed the presiding judge that he had “a problem” with representing Saladin (N.T. 3/8/85 at l). He stated that in addition to representing Saladin, the Defender Association currently represented Williams in an unrelated criminal case that was scheduled for trial the following day. The judge expressed the view that Williams could simply waive any conflict of interest which resulted from this dual representation. The judge then called Williams’ mother to the stand and asked her if she objected to the Public Defender’s representation of her son. She said that she had no objection.

At the hearing, the Commonwealth called Williams as its sole witness. On direct examination, Williams testified that Saladin stole the coat. Mr. Bridge asked a few preliminary questions on cross, and then argued to the court as follows:

MR BRIDGE: Your Honor, based on an earlier problem that I have, that I know things about Mr. Williams—
THE COURT: He has no objection to you cross-examining about all his background. Go right ahead.
MR. BRIDGE: The problem is that I do, in that—
THE COURT: It has no other affect on him in his case for trial tomorrow, and he’s waived any objection to you representing this man, so you can do everyhing you can to do to represent this defendant. He’s waived all of that. Anything you may know about him, he’s waived. You can tell me about all of his cases, if that is relevant.
MR. QUINN: [For the Commonwealth] I would be glad to ask him if Mr. Bridge is reluctant.
MR. BRIDGE: The only reluctance is because I only learned about him in the attorney-client relationship.
THE COURT: He’s waived that. You are perfectly free to represent Mr. Saladin, and use any conversation that you may have to as to Mr. Williams' past problems. (N.T. 3/8/85 at 9-10)

Mr. Bridge continued to protest the court’s decision. He concluded by stating:

MR. BRIDGE: Your Honor, I really, in good conscience, can’t go further on the cross. I will rest. (N.T. 3/8/85 at ID

The court adjudged Saladin delinquent and ordered him committed to a juvenile facility. At a post adjudication hearing, Bridge again stressed that in his capacity as an attorney with the Defender Association, he was privy to confidential information about Williams. In particular, he said the he had learned: (1) that Williams had been in a school for disturbe»! children, (2) that Williams had tried to bite off his own finger, and (3) that Williams had been committed to a mental hospital for three years prior to January, 1985. (N.T. 5/29/85 at 3-5). The court denied relief. This appeal followed.

II.

As this court noted in Commonwealth v. Biancone, 260 Pa.Super. 197, 200-201, 393 A.2d 1221, 1223 (1978), “[m]ost of the discussion of the subject of counsel’s conflict of interest has arisen when the attorney has represented co-defendant[s] at the same trial.” In the case sub judice, the conflict does not arise from counsel’s representation of co-defendants but rather stems from counsel’s representation of a criminal defendant and a complaining witness. We hold that a conflict of interest may exist under these circumstances.

In Commonwealth v. Westbrook, 484 Pa. 534, 400 A.2d 160 (1979), the Court found that a conflict of interest may arise from the representation of individuals who are not co-defendants. See also Commonwealth v. Nicolella, 307 Pa.Super. 96, 452 A.2d 1055 (1982). Moreover, many federal decisions specifically discuss the problem of witness-defendant conflicts. United States v. Jeffers, 520 F.2d 1256, 1264 (7th Cir.1975) states that “[i]n cases in which the alleged conflict of interest is based on the prior representation of a prosecution witness by defense counsel, the courts have examined the particular circumstances to determine whether counsel’s undivided loyalties reside with his current client.” See Castillo v. Estelle, 504 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir.1974) (reversing conviction where counsel had represented in civil litigation president of company which defendant allegedly robbed); Brown v. United States, 665 F.2d 271 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Winkle, 722 F.2d 605 (10th Cir.1983). Accordingly, we must apply general conflict of interest principles to the facts before us.

III.

In Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980), the Supreme Court established a minimum standard for effective assistance of counsel. Under Sullivan, an appellant’s conviction must be overturned once he demonstrates that “an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” 446 U.S. at 348, 100 S.Ct. at 1718. In light of this rule, we proceed with a three part inquiry. First, did Bridge’s association with Williams and Saladin pose an “actual conflict of interest”? Second, was this conflict of interest waived? Third, did the conflict of interest adversely affect Bridge’s representation of Saladin?

A.

We must first define “actual conflict of interest”. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that a conflict of interest actually exists where appellant “has a defense inconsistent with that advanced by the other client, or ... counsel neglected his case in order to give the other client a more spirited defense.” Commonwealth v. Breaker, 456 Pa. 341, 345, 318 A.2d 354, 356 (1974). In so stating, the Court was providing examples of actual conflicts of interest; it did not limit the definition to these two situations. 456 Pa. at 345 n. 2, 318 A.2d at 356 n. 2. The full meaning of “actual conflict of interest” is somewhat broader; such a conflict is evidenced whenever during the course of representation, the interests of appellant — and the interests of another client towards whom counsel bears obligations — diverge with respect to a material factual or legal issue or to a course of action. See Sullivan v. Cuyler, 723 F.2d 1077, 1086 (3rd Cir., 1983) (final determination following remand from Supreme Court).

In the case sub judice, Saladin’s interest and Williams’ interest diverged with respect to Bridge’s cross-examination of Williams. Bridge had an obligation to Saladin to use all the information at his disposal to impeach Williams’ credibility. Yet, Bridge also had an obligation to Williams to maintain the confidentiality of Williams’ communications with the Defender Association. Given these inconsistent duties, counsel was forced to make a “Hobson’s choice”.

One might argue that Bridge had a greater responsibility to Saladin than to Williams. Yet, the importance of maintaining client confidences cannot be lightly disregarded. See Slater v. Rimar, Inc., 462 Pa. 138, 338 A.2d 584 (1975). Any statements Williams made to the Defender Association in connection with his legal representation were covered by the attorney-client privilege. See Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 290 Pa.Super. 254, 434 A.2d 740 (1981). Moreover, a heightened concern for protecting confidences is particularly appropriate where a lawyer is called upon to cross-examine an individual whom his office represents. As Ethical Consideration 4-5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:

A lawyer should not use information acquired in the course of the representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client and a lawyer should not use, except with the consent of his client after full disclosure, such information for his own purposes. Likewise, a lawyer should be diligent in his efforts to prevent the misuse of such information by his employees and associates. Care should be exercised by a lawyer to prevent the disclosure of the confidences and secrets of one client to another, and no employment should be accepted that might require such disclosure.

We find that counsel had a duty to protect Williams’ rights as well as a duty to protect Saladin’s rights. Thus, an “actual conflict of interest” arose. See Ross v. Heyne, 638 F.2d 979 (7th Cir.1980) (finding actual conflict where counsel had access to confidences of witness who was associate’s client).

B.

We now turn to consider whether the actual conflict between Saladin and Williams was somehow waived at trial. We find that there was no waiver.

At Saladin’s hearing, the presiding judge apparently reasoned as follows. Counsel claims that he owes an obligation to defendant and an obligation to complainant. If complainant — through his mother — waives any rights he may have, counsel will be left owing a duty only to the defendant. Thus, any conflict of interest will disappear. Compare United States ex rel. Kachinski v. Cavell, supra at n. 4.

We need not decide whether a conflict of interest may ever be waived by a juvenile complainant or his mother. The fact remains that nothing occured at Saladin’s hearing which was sufficient to waive Williams’ rights. The presiding judge did no more than ask Williams’ mother if she objected to dual representation. He never explained that her son would be deprived of his attorney-client privilege or that her son might be vigorously cross-examined about his mental health. When a conflict of interest is imminent, courts are reluctant to recognize a waiver of rights in the absence of full disclosure. See Pirillo v. Takiff, 462 Pa. 511, 525, 341 A.2d 896, 902-903 (1975), aff'd on rehearing per curiam, 466 Pa. 187, 352 A.2d 11, cert. denied 423 U.S. 1083, 96 S.Ct. 873, 47 L.Ed.2d 94 (1976); Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 70, 62 S.Ct. 457, 464, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). Compare Commonwealth v. Szekeresh, 357 Pa.Super. 149, 515 A.2d 605 (1986) (defendant may waive conflict after being informed of specific risks involved in joint representation). Here there was virtually no disclosure. Therefore, Williams’ rights remained in force. Therefore, the actual conflict of interest between Williams and Saladin persisted.

C.

Finally, it is clear that this actual conflict adversely affected the performance of Saladin’s counsel. As a direct result of the conflict, counsel cut short a cross-examination of the only witness to testify against Saladin. In so doing, counsel lost the opportunity to expose the witness’ mental problems and to attempt to discredit the witness’ testimony on this basis.

Appellant has fully met his burden under the Sullivan standard. Compare Commonwealth v. Buehl, 510 Pa. 363, 379, 508 A.2d 1167, 1175 (1986); Commonwealth v. Kelly, 316 Pa.Super. 438, 463 A.2d 444 (1983); Commonwealth v. Biancone, supra (convictions affirmed in absence of evidence of adverse effects from alleged conflicts of interest).

Order reversed and case remanded for a new adjudicatory hearing. Jurisdiction is relinquished.

      . Although counsel never specifically stated that he was motioning to withdraw, he clearly communicated an intention to do so to the trial judge. Accordingly, we construe the exchanges between counsel and the court as a proper motion to withdraw. See Commonwealth v. Person, 345 Pa.Super. 341, 347, 498 A.2d 432, 435 (1985).

      . The Assistant District Attorney later asserted that at the time of Saladin’s hearing, the Defender Association had not formally been appointed to represent Lewis Williams in his upcoming case. However, the Assistant District Attorney conceded that the Defender Association had an extensive history of representing Williams. We conclude that both Saladin and Williams were clients of the Defender Association when Saladin’s hearing took place.

      . On appeal, Saladin contends: (1) that the trial court erred in failing to allow counsel to withdraw from representation, and (2) that counsel was ineffective for failing to fully cross-examine the complainant. We do not reach the second issue.

      . Although it is not clear if Mr. Bridge ever personally acted as an advocate for Lewis Williams, both Saladin and Williams were clients of the Defender Association. Even the representation of two clients by different attorneys employed by the same Defender Association constitutes dual representation for the purpose of conflict of interest analysis. Commonwealth v. Evans, 306 Pa.Super. 25, 451 A.2d 1373 (1982).

      . In the instant case, appellant might prevail even if he could not satisfy the requirements of Sullivan. The true holding of Sullivan was that "a defendant who raised no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance.” 446 U.S. at 348, 100 S.Ct. at 1718 (emphasis added). Where, as here, appellant’s attorney explicitly raised the conflict of interest issue at trial, it is up to the trial court to "take adequate steps to ascertain whether the risk [of a conflict] is too remote to warrant separate counsel.” Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 484, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1178, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978). Unless the trial court fulfills this obligation, appellant's conviction must be overturned "whether [or hot] the alleged conflict actually existed.” Sullivan interpreting Holloway, 446 U.S. at 345, 100 S.Ct. at 1716.
      Furthermore, several Pennsylvania cases indicate that an appellant need only demonstrate "potential harm” from a conflict of interest in order to win a new trial. See Commonwealth v. Pinhas, 496 Pa. 210, 214, 436 A.2d 618, 620 (1981) (Roberts, J., concurring). We need not determine the extent to which this standard differs from that of Sullivan or whether this standard is still the law of Pennsylvania.

      . We need not determine whether counsel breached his duty of confidentiality by describing Williams’ mental problems to the judge during the post-adjudication hearing. But see United States v. Jeffers, supra, 520 F.2d at 1256 (counsel had responsibility to disclose confidential data to trial judge when necessary for resolution of conflicts issue.)

      . But see United States ex rel. Kachinski v. Cavell, 453 F.2d 581 (3rd Cir., 1971). In Kachinski, the Third Circuit found that the prosecution witness had waived his attorney-client privilege as soon as he made a statement to the police concerning the defendant’s crimes. Furthermore, the Third Circuit reasoned that once the privilege is waived, no ethical concerns should restrain defense counsel from fully cross-examining a client witness. We decline to apply such a rule in the case sub judice. Unlike the prosecution witness in Kachinski, Williams had an ongoing relationship with defense counsel’s associates. Moreover, a thorough cross-examination would have probed intimate aspects of Williams' life — matters far beyond the scope of any statements Williams is likely to have made to police concerning Saladin’s alleged crimes. At least where these circumstances are present, we cannot conclude that a prosecution witness has automatically waived his attorney-client privilege.

      . THE COURT: The fact that the Public Defender may represent him sometime tomorrow in a case and is now today representing somebody that your son is testifying against, do you have any objection to him representing this man?
      THE MOTHER: No, I don’t.
      THE COURT: Go ahead.
      MR. BRIDGE: So that the record is abundantly—
      THE COURT: The record is clear. We will proceed without further question. Thank you.
      MR. BRIDGE: Over our objection.
      THE COURT: Of course. (N.T. 3/8/85 at 4)