Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. Diehl
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided September 18, 1992No. 23 W.D. Appeal Docket 1991PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ZAPPALA, Justice.
The basic question we are asked to decide is whether the Superior Court erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss the charges of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, statutory rape, incest and two counts of indecent assault on the basis of double jeopardy. Because a manifest necessity did exist for the sua sponte declaration of a mistrial and prosecutorial misconduct was absent, we now affirm.
*216In January of 1989, Amy Diehl, Appellant’s sixteen-year-old daughter, filed a complaint against Appellant. It was alleged that during a visit…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. JornSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- United States v. PerezSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- United States v. DinitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Commonwealth v. BartolomucciSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Commonwealth v. StewartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Commonwealth v. OrieSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Commonwealth v. OgrodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- State v. LoyalSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2000
- Commonwealth v. KellySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Commonwealth v. McCordSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.