Commonwealth v. Baldwin

32 A.3d 1259, 613 Pa. 216, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 2918

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Commonwealth v. Baldwin. Read the opinion of the Court — 604 Pa. 34 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 5, 2011·No. No. 636 WAL 2010·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Whether the test employed in United States v. Peterson, 233 F.3d 101 (1st Cir.2000), adopted by the Superior Court in this case, to be utilized when a criminal defendant seeks to testify after the close of evidence, is an unconstitutional burden on a citizen’s fundamental right to testify in his own defense?

Justice ORIE MELVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Whether the test employed in United States v. Peterson, 233 F.3d 101 (1st Cir.2000), adopted by the Superior Court in this case, to be utilized when a criminal defendant seeks to testify after the close of evidence, is an unconstitutional burden on a citizen’s fundamental right to testify in his own defense?

Justice ORIE MELVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 32 A.3d 1259, 613 Pa. 216, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 2918 (Pa. 2011).

Pincite

32 A.3d 1259 (Commonwealth v. Baldwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

United States v. Henry Peterson

233 F.3d 101 (First Circuit, 2000)

Opinion

Related