Commonwealth v. Cathey
This text of 381 A.2d 137 (Commonwealth v. Cathey) 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.
Opinion
OPINION
Judgments affirmed.
The appellant raised six issues: (1) the district attorney should not have been permitted to strike for cause jurors who oppose capital punishment; (2) the Commonwealth failed to provide the defense with the name of a Commonwealth eyewitness and certain exculpatory statements made by appellant; (3) the trial court permitted improper cross-examination of a defense character witness; (4) the trial court improperly refused to allow a witness to testify as to certain exculpatory statements made by appellant and certain other statements made by a defense witness; (5) appellant’s confession was a product of unnecessary delay between arrest and arraignment in violation of Pa.R.Cr.P. 118 (now 130); and (6) the confession was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
381 A.2d 137, 475 Pa. 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-cathey-pa-1977.