Commonwealth v. Mays

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Mays

947 A.2d 710

DecidedApril 22, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 947 A.2d 710 (Commonwealth v. Mays) 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. Mays, 947 A.2d 710 (Pa. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, 2008, 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:

Does the acquittal of the possession charge here require acquittal of the greater offense of possession with intent to deliver? Should the contrary rule stated and restated by some Pennsylvania cases, which has been criticized in other jurisdictions, be reconsidered by this court because inconsistent verdicts by a judge are not entitled to the same tolerance given to those by juries?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, 2008, 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:

Does the acquittal of the possession charge here require acquittal of the greater offense of possession with intent to deliver? Should the contrary rule stated and restated by some Pennsylvania cases, which has been criticized in other jurisdictions, be reconsidered by this court because inconsistent verdicts by a judge are not entitled to the same tolerance given to those by juries?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

947 A.2d 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-mays-pa-2008.