Commonwealth v. Maxwell
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- United States v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Commonwealth v. AllenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Commonwealth v. WableSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- Commonwealth v. DanielsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Commonwealth v. TrowerySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Commonwealth v. RevtaiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Commonwealth v. SchimelfenigSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Com. v. Flint, J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Commonwealth v. SchimelfenigSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987