Commonwealth v. Cannon

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Cannon

982 A.2d 1218

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 20, 2009·No. 302 EAL 2009·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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. *1219 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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. *1219 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), does not apply?

Commonwealth v. Cannon, 982 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 2009).

Pincite

982 A.2d 1218 (Commonwealth v. Cannon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related