Commonwealth v. Mussoline
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts,
Appellant, Anthony Mussoline, was tided before a judge and jury and convicted of malicious mischief in connection with the dynamiting of a scrap yard owned by one Salvatore Gaudiano. Relying entirely on circumstantial evidence to prove Mussoline’s guilt, the Commonwealth was permitted to establish, inter alia, that three small droplets of blood found 60 feet from the scene of the explosion were of the same type, “A”, as that of appellant. It is uncontradicted that type A is the second most common blood type, appearing in approximately 30% of all human beings.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Fisher v. DyeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- State v. ThomasArizona Supreme Court · 1954
- Shanks v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1945
- Murray v. SiegalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- State v. AlexanderSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SilverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Commonwealth v. HazlettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Taylor v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1982
- People v. LindseyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Commonwealth v. PorterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.