Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Wright

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 3, 1956No. Appeal, 35PublishedCited by 64 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mb. Justice Arnold,

This appeal will have to be quashed. The defendant was indicted for fornication and bastardy. The prosecuting witness testified positively that the defendant had had intercourse with her and was the father of her child. The defendant did not testify, but introduced a written report of blood tests which, in the opinion of the doctors making the report, showed that the defendant could not be the father of her child. In spite of this evidence the jury convicted him. The court granted a new trial in the interest of justice, after which the defendant took an appeal,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Com. Ex Rel. Paige v. Smith, WardenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  2. Commonwealth v. MellonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  3. In re QuaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  4. Commonwealth v. HaimbachSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  5. Commonwealth of Penna. v. GatesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930

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

3Cited by64 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. TabbSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  2. Commonwealth v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  3. Commonwealth v. BurnsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  4. Commonwealth v. MeadowsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. Commonwealth v. WinebrennerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970

59 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