Commonwealth v. Safrit

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Safrit

538 A.2d 1335, 517 Pa. 484, 1988 Pa. LEXIS 50

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 26, 1988

DocketNo. 74 M.D. Appeal Docket 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 538 A.2d 1335 (Commonwealth v. Safrit) 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. Safrit, 538 A.2d 1335, 517 Pa. 484, 1988 Pa. LEXIS 50 (Pa. 1988).

Pincite

Opinions

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of sentence imposed upon Appellant Franklin E. Safrit following the convictions of three counts of homicide by vehicle, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3732, and the summary offense under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3322 is vacated and the matter is remanded for a new trial. In Commonwealth v. Heck, 517 Pa. 192, 535 A.2d 575 (1987), we held that the minimum requirements of culpability set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. § 302(a) apply to the offense of homicide by vehicle. We note that the trial judge did not have the benefit of this Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Heck, supra, and that his charge reflected the language of appellate decisions at the time of the trial. The jury instructions in the instant case failed to inform the jury, however, that the Commonwealth [486]*486must establish that the Appellant's conduct was criminally negligent or reckless. The absence of a charge on the applicable mens rea requirements warrants a new trial.

HUTCHINSON, Former Justice, did not participate in the decision of this case. McDERMOTT, J., files a concurring opinion.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of sentence imposed upon Appellant Franklin E. Safrit following the convictions of three counts of homicide by vehicle, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3732, and the summary offense under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3322 is vacated and the matter is remanded for a new trial. In Commonwealth v. Heck, 517 Pa. 192, 535 A.2d 575 (1987), we held that the minimum requirements of culpability set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. § 302(a) apply to the offense of homicide by vehicle. We note that the trial judge did not have the benefit of this Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Heck, supra, and that his charge reflected the language of appellate decisions at the time of the trial. The jury instructions in the instant case failed to inform the jury, however, that the Commonwealth [486]*486must establish that the Appellant's conduct was criminally negligent or reckless. The absence of a charge on the applicable mens rea requirements warrants a new trial.

HUTCHINSON, Former Justice, did not participate in the decision of this case. McDERMOTT, J., files a concurring opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 A.2d 1335, 517 Pa. 484, 1988 Pa. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-safrit-pa-1988.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack