Commonwealth v. Yocham

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Yocham

346 A.2d 297, 464 Pa. 223, 1975 Pa. LEXIS 1048

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 30, 1975

DocketNo. 13

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 346 A.2d 297 (Commonwealth v. Yocham) 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. Yocham, 346 A.2d 297, 464 Pa. 223, 1975 Pa. LEXIS 1048 (Pa. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The appellant Rickie Allan Yocham, was convicted of murder in the first degree, robbery, and conspiracy. After the denial of post-verdict motions and the sentencing of appellant, he filed an appeal to this Court contending (1) that those portions of his confession containing references to his commission of other crimes should not have been admitted into evidence; (2) that the admission of the typewritten confession signed by the appel[225]*225lant violated the best evidence rule; and (3) that the jury should have been given a requested charge concerning appellant’s alleged withdrawal from the criminal activity. We have examined each of the three issues raised and find them to be without merit.

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

JONES, C. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The appellant Rickie Allan Yocham, was convicted of murder in the first degree, robbery, and conspiracy. After the denial of post-verdict motions and the sentencing of appellant, he filed an appeal to this Court contending (1) that those portions of his confession containing references to his commission of other crimes should not have been admitted into evidence; (2) that the admission of the typewritten confession signed by the appel[225]*225lant violated the best evidence rule; and (3) that the jury should have been given a requested charge concerning appellant’s alleged withdrawal from the criminal activity. We have examined each of the three issues raised and find them to be without merit.

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

JONES, C. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 A.2d 297, 464 Pa. 223, 1975 Pa. LEXIS 1048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-yocham-pa-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack