Commonwealth v. Taylor

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Taylor

414 A.2d 1012, 489 Pa. 519, 1980 Pa. LEXIS 661

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 30, 1980

DocketNo. 384

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 414 A.2d 1012 (Commonwealth v. Taylor) 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. Taylor, 414 A.2d 1012, 489 Pa. 519, 1980 Pa. LEXIS 661 (Pa. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

FLAHERTY, Justice.

On August 14, 1978 appellant, James Taylor, was convicted of first degree murder and aggravated robbery following the fatal beating of Robert Morgan. On appeal, appellant presents three arguments: 1) that a mistrial should have been granted because the prosecutor improperly cross-examined a defense witness; 2) that it was reversible error for the trial court to have permitted a court officer to testify concerning her observation, during trial, of a conversation between appellant and a defense witness; 3) that the trial judge invaded the province of the jury when he instructed them that he was “required” to charge them on the law of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record and we find nothing which would constitute reversible error.

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

FLAHERTY, Justice.

On August 14, 1978 appellant, James Taylor, was convicted of first degree murder and aggravated robbery following the fatal beating of Robert Morgan. On appeal, appellant presents three arguments: 1) that a mistrial should have been granted because the prosecutor improperly cross-examined a defense witness; 2) that it was reversible error for the trial court to have permitted a court officer to testify concerning her observation, during trial, of a conversation between appellant and a defense witness; 3) that the trial judge invaded the province of the jury when he instructed them that he was “required” to charge them on the law of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record and we find nothing which would constitute reversible error.

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

414 A.2d 1012, 489 Pa. 519, 1980 Pa. LEXIS 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-taylor-pa-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack