Commonwealth v. Thorpe

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Thorpe

492 A.2d 1138, 342 Pa. Super. 316, 1985 Pa. Super. LEXIS 7779

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 10, 1985·No. Appeal No. 1427·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Today we decided that double jeopardy principles do not bar reprosecution of appellant’s co-defendant on charges arising from the killing of Zollie Perry. Appellant raises the identical issue decided in that case, and we therefore affirm on the basis of Commonwealth v. Simons, 342 Pa.Super. 281, 492 A.2d 1119 (1985).

Order affirmed.

WIEAND, J., files a concurring opinion. BROSKY, J., joins, and files a concurring statement. DEL SOLE, J., files a dissenting statement in which POPOVICH, J., joins. SPAETH, President Judge, files a dissenting statement.

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

PER CURIAM:

Today we decided that double jeopardy principles do not bar reprosecution of appellant’s co-defendant on charges arising from the killing of Zollie Perry. Appellant raises the identical issue decided in that case, and we therefore affirm on the basis of Commonwealth v. Simons, 342 Pa.Super. 281, 492 A.2d 1119 (1985).

Order affirmed.

WIEAND, J., files a concurring opinion. BROSKY, J., joins, and files a concurring statement. DEL SOLE, J., files a dissenting statement in which POPOVICH, J., joins. SPAETH, President Judge, files a dissenting statement.

Commonwealth v. Thorpe, 492 A.2d 1138, 342 Pa. Super. 316, 1985 Pa. Super. LEXIS 7779 (Pa. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

492 A.2d 1138 (Commonwealth v. Thorpe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related