Commonwealth v. Chambers, R.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Chambers, R.

170 A.3d 1030

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 6, 2017

DocketCommonwealth v. Chambers, R., - No. 147 EAL 2017 (Granted)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 170 A.3d 1030 (Commonwealth v. Chambers, R.) 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. Chambers, R., 170 A.3d 1030 (Pa. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of September 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues,' as stated by petitioner are:

(1) Is not the Superior Court’s holding in a published opinion that a defendant can be liable for the underlying conduct of another by virtue of being - a .co-conspirator inconsistent with the plain language of the governing statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 306, which provides for accomplice liability only, and with this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Knox, 105 A.3d 1194 (Pa. 2014)?

(2) Did not the. Superior Court erroneously analyze accomplice liability, and incorrectly conclude that the evidence was sufficient to convict on that theory?

(3) Did not the Superior Court err in . concluding that the evidence was *1031 sufficient to convict Appellant of conspiracy to assault the victim with Mace under 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, since he neither intended nor agreed to commit this crime?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of September 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues,' as stated by petitioner are:

(1) Is not the Superior Court’s holding in a published opinion that a defendant can be liable for the underlying conduct of another by virtue of being - a .co-conspirator inconsistent with the plain language of the governing statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 306, which provides for accomplice liability only, and with this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Knox, 105 A.3d 1194 (Pa. 2014)?

(2) Did not the. Superior Court erroneously analyze accomplice liability, and incorrectly conclude that the evidence was sufficient to convict on that theory?

(3) Did not the Superior Court err in . concluding that the evidence was *1031 sufficient to convict Appellant of conspiracy to assault the victim with Mace under 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, since he neither intended nor agreed to commit this crime?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.3d 1030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-chambers-r-pa-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack