Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Tillery

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 30, 1992No. 426 and 427PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HESTER, Judge:

In this appeal, Albert D. Tillery, appellant, contends that during his jury trial, the Commonwealth incorrectly used as incriminating evidence the fact that he had invoked his fourth amendment constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. We agree with this contention, and we reverse and remand for a new trial.

The record reveals the following. Appellant was charged at two separate criminal docket numbers of one count each of receiving stolen property and conspiracy to commit retail theft. The evidence presented against appellant at the jury trial on this…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. ShafferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  2. Commonwealth v. HaidemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  3. Raymond R. Fowle v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
  4. Commonwealth v. FordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Commonwealth v. HorvathSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. SwerdlowSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. State v. GauthierCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  3. Commonwealth v. Chapman, L., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  4. Commonwealth v. GibsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. State v. TungNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2019

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

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

Powered by the Exa API