Commonwealth v. Mouzon

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Mouzon

15 A.3d 43, 609 Pa. 63, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 376

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 16, 2011

Docket564 EAL 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 15 A.3d 43 (Commonwealth v. Mouzon) 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. Mouzon, 15 A.3d 43, 609 Pa. 63, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 376 (Pa. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

*64 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 16th day of February 2011, 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 Superior Court’s decision overturning [respondent’s] first-degree murder conviction contradict this Court’s precedent holding that: (A) one who instigates or continues the underlying difficulty may not later claim self-defense; (B) deadly force may not be used against an unarmed victim who is backing away, and thus no longer poses a threat; and (C) even when a prima facie case of self-defense is presented, a trial court has discretion to exclude evidence of a victim’s prior criminal convictions that were remote in time?

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

*64 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 16th day of February 2011, 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 Superior Court’s decision overturning [respondent’s] first-degree murder conviction contradict this Court’s precedent holding that: (A) one who instigates or continues the underlying difficulty may not later claim self-defense; (B) deadly force may not be used against an unarmed victim who is backing away, and thus no longer poses a threat; and (C) even when a prima facie case of self-defense is presented, a trial court has discretion to exclude evidence of a victim’s prior criminal convictions that were remote in time?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.3d 43, 609 Pa. 63, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-mouzon-pa-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack