Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Marshall

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 23, 1997No. 11 E.D. 1996Published

1DissentCastille, Justice

The issue before the Court is whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the trial court’s verdict that the $3,400.00 of bundled cash was either “furnished or intended to be furnished ... in exchange for a controlled substance ..., [or represents the] proceeds traceable to such an exchange,” or “used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 6801(a)(6)(A), (B). The majority, in reaching its holding that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the money had a nexus to illegal activity, essentially…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. SpeightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  2. Riddle Memorial Hospital v. DohanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Kunkel v. Allentown Portland Cement Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API