Commonwealth v. Vogel

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Vogel

321 A.2d 633, 458 Pa. 200, 1974 Pa. LEXIS 707

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 1, 1974

DocketAppeal, 340

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 321 A.2d 633 (Commonwealth v. Vogel) 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. Vogel, 321 A.2d 633, 458 Pa. 200, 1974 Pa. LEXIS 707 (Pa. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for a new trial following a jury verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree. The new trial was granted on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence as to the sanity of the defendant at the time of commission of the acts in question.

This case was before us on a prior appeal, Commonwealth v. Vogel, 440 Pa. 1, 268 A.2d 89 (1970). Since our decision in that case, we have had occasion to consider the sufficiency of the evidence when the defense is that of insanity, Commonwealth v. Demmitt, 456 Pa, 475, 321 A.2d 627 (1974), and have also had occasion to reconsider the similar problems presented when the defense of intoxication is raised. Commonwealth v. Rose, 457 Pa. 380, 321 A.2d 627 (1974). While we are of the opinion that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in granting a new trial for the reasons stated in its opinion, our affirmance of the order should be considered in light of our decisions in Demmitt and Rose, supra.

Order affirmed.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for a new trial following a jury verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree. The new trial was granted on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence as to the sanity of the defendant at the time of commission of the acts in question.

This case was before us on a prior appeal, Commonwealth v. Vogel, 440 Pa. 1, 268 A.2d 89 (1970). Since our decision in that case, we have had occasion to consider the sufficiency of the evidence when the defense is that of insanity, Commonwealth v. Demmitt, 456 Pa, 475, 321 A.2d 627 (1974), and have also had occasion to reconsider the similar problems presented when the defense of intoxication is raised. Commonwealth v. Rose, 457 Pa. 380, 321 A.2d 627 (1974). While we are of the opinion that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in granting a new trial for the reasons stated in its opinion, our affirmance of the order should be considered in light of our decisions in Demmitt and Rose, supra.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

321 A.2d 633, 458 Pa. 200, 1974 Pa. LEXIS 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-vogel-pa-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack