Commonwealth v. Marsh
961 A.2d 51
This text of 961 A.2d 51 (Commonwealth v. Marsh) 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. Marsh, 961 A.2d 51 (Pa. 2008).
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:
(1) Did the Superior Court err by holding, in contradiction of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and this Court’s precedent, that unsupported, vague statements in a defendant’s motion to discover a confidential informant’s identity satisfy his threshold burden to prove the materiality of his request to a potential defense and its reasonableness?
(2) Did the Superior Court err by finding that under this Court’s Payne and Carter decisions the confidential informant’s identity was material to a mistaken identity defense where the defendant was arrested within one minute at the scene of the crime in the view of three officers?
(3) Did the Superior Court err by balancing the Commonwealth’s confidentiality privilege against [the] defendant’s desire for disclosure where [the] defendant failed to meet his threshold burden of proof?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
961 A.2d 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-marsh-pa-2008.