Commonwealth v. Jordan, G., Pet
This text of Commonwealth v. Jordan, G., Pet (Commonwealth v. Jordan, G., Pet) 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 269 WAL 2020 : Respondent : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Order of the Superior Court v. : : : GREGORY JORDAN, : : Petitioner :
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal
is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all
remaining issues. The issue, as stated by petitioner is:
Whether the Superior Court panel erred as a matter of law in concluding that inconsistent verdicts are always permissible in consolidated jury/bench trials pursuant to Commonwealth v. Yachymiak, 505 A.2d 1024 (Pa. Super. 1986) and Commonwealth v. Wharton, 594 A.2d 696 (Pa. Super. 1991), particularly where a different panel of the Superior Court reached the exact opposite conclusion in Commonwealth v. Rankin, [235 A.3d 373 (Pa. Super. 2020)]?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Commonwealth v. Jordan, G., Pet, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-jordan-g-pet-pa-2020.