Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Maxwell

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 13, 1984No. 1911PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SPAETH, President Judge:

This is an appeal from a judgment of sentence for robbery and related offenses. Appellant argues 1) that his Rule 1100 rights were violated; 2) that the complaint should have been dismissed because of an eighteen month delay between the incident and arrest; 3) that the photographic identification should have been suppressed; 4) that the victim’s wallet should have been suppressed; and 5) that the trial court should have declared a mistrial because of a witness’s reference to a homicide detective. We find these arguments without merit, and we therefore affirm.

The facts…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. United States v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Commonwealth v. AllenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  3. Commonwealth v. WableSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  4. Commonwealth v. DanielsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Commonwealth v. TrowerySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1967

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. RevtaiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Commonwealth v. SchimelfenigSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Com. v. Flint, J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  4. Commonwealth v. SchimelfenigSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API