Commonwealth v. Stranges
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, Judge:
Once again, we are called upon to determine whether in a prosecution for drunk driving under the Motor Vehicle Code, a defendant may be admitted to Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) over the objection of the attorney for the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Lutz, 508 Pa. 297, 495 A.2d 928 (1985) remains the law of this Commonwealth. That case instructs us that the attorney for the Commonwealth must be free to submit a case or not submit it for ARD consideration based upon her or his view of what is most beneficial for society and the offender. As there was no abuse of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Commonwealth v. DuggerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Commonwealth v. LutzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Commonwealth v. EbertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Commonwealth v. KiehlSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Commonwealth v. DoughertySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Commonwealth v. AgnewSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Commonwealth v. CorriganSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- Commonwealth v. ClineSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Commonwealth v. HydeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Commonwealth v. PypiakSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.