Commonwealth v. Tressler

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Tressler

336 A.2d 265, 461 Pa. 240, 1975 Pa. LEXIS 754

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 17, 1975

DocketNo. 226

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 336 A.2d 265 (Commonwealth v. Tressler) 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. Tressler, 336 A.2d 265, 461 Pa. 240, 1975 Pa. LEXIS 754 (Pa. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, John June Tressler, Jr., was convicted of murder in the first degree and has appealed his judgment of sentence to this Court. Appellant contends (1) the [241]*241evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict; (2) an alleged eye-witness did not testify because of threats received; (3) the trial court’s charge was prejudicial; (4) the jury was preoccupied during part of the trial because a hurricane had struck the area; and (5) the appellant did not intelligently understand and waive the Miranda warnings which he received. We have examined each of these issues and conclude that each is without merit. The appellant has raised other issues which were not raised in the trial court. These are not properly before us. Commonwealth v. Clair, - Pa. -, 326 A.2d 272 (1974).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, John June Tressler, Jr., was convicted of murder in the first degree and has appealed his judgment of sentence to this Court. Appellant contends (1) the [241]*241evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict; (2) an alleged eye-witness did not testify because of threats received; (3) the trial court’s charge was prejudicial; (4) the jury was preoccupied during part of the trial because a hurricane had struck the area; and (5) the appellant did not intelligently understand and waive the Miranda warnings which he received. We have examined each of these issues and conclude that each is without merit. The appellant has raised other issues which were not raised in the trial court. These are not properly before us. Commonwealth v. Clair, - Pa. -, 326 A.2d 272 (1974).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

336 A.2d 265, 461 Pa. 240, 1975 Pa. LEXIS 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-tressler-pa-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack