Commonwealth v. Cannon
982 A.2d 1218, 603 Pa. 137, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 2191
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 20, 2009
DocketPetition No. 302 EAL 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases
This text of 982 A.2d 1218 (Commonwealth v. Cannon) 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. Cannon, 982 A.2d 1218, 603 Pa. 137, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 2191 (Pa. 2009).
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 2009, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:
Did the Superior Court override controlling authority establishing that in a joint trial, where the Commonwealth properly redacted a co-defendant’s statement and did not use it to directly establish defendant’s guilt, and where the trial court properly instructed the jury regarding that statement, the narrow exception to the presumption that a jury will follow its instructions established in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), does not apply?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Commonwealth v. Cannon
22 A.3d 210 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2011)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
982 A.2d 1218, 603 Pa. 137, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 2191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-cannon-pa-2009.