Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Darnell

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 21, 1955No. Appeals, 292 and 293PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Gunther, J.,

The defendant and three others were indicted, tried and convicted of a robbery and assault. Defendant, who was not present at the crime, was found guilty as both an accessory before the fact and after the fact. He has appealed alleging several errors by the trial judge and asks for a new trial.

Defendant first complains of an improper charge as to the definitions of accessory, both before and after the fact. The trial judge charged as follows:

“An accessory in law is one who in some manner is connected with a crime either before or after its commission or perpetration. An…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. HabeckerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. Commonwealth v. CunninghamSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  3. Commonwealth v. MourarSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1950

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. SisakSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  2. State v. HallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1975
  3. State v. ArredondoArizona Supreme Court · 1974
  4. United States v. AnthonyDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1956
  5. Commonwealth v. FINKELSTEINSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959

16 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