Commonwealth v. Bernstine

162 A. 297, 308 Pa. 394, 1932 Pa. LEXIS 636
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 22, 1932·No. Appeal, 188·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

All the members of this court, with the exception of Justice Maxey, who dissents (and Justice Linn, who did not sit in the argument), are of one mind that the judgment and order of the Superior Court in this case should be affirmed upon the record and for the reasons set forth in its opinion, reported in 103 Pa. Superior Ct. 518, and it is accordingly so ordered.

The judgment is affirmed and the record remitted that the sentence of the lower court be complied with.

Justice Maxey dissents on the ground that the evidence does not justify the conviction of the defendant on the charge of extortion; he also holds that there was prejudicial error in the latitude allowed the district attorney in cross-examining defendant’s character witnesses.

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

Commonwealth v. Bernstine, 162 A. 297, 308 Pa. 394, 1932 Pa. LEXIS 636 (Pa. 1932).

162 A. 297 (Commonwealth v. Bernstine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Neff
171 A.2d 561 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1961)
Commonwealth ex rel. Sickler v. Yaukey
11 Pa. D. & C.2d 11 (Fulton County Court of Common Pleas, 1956)
Commonwealth v. Gettis
71 Pa. D. & C. 1 (Philadelphia County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1949)
State v. Folkes
150 P.2d 17 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1944)
Commonwealth v. Berman
181 A. 214 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1935)