Commonwealth v. Bernstine

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Bernstine

162 A. 297, 308 Pa. 394, 1932 Pa. LEXIS 636

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 22, 1932

DocketAppeal, 188

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 162 A. 297 (Commonwealth v. Bernstine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A. 297, 308 Pa. 394, 1932 Pa. LEXIS 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-bernstine-pa-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack