Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Fithian

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 17, 2008No. 10 MAP 2008, No. 11 MAP 2008PublishedCited by 129 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice TODD.

In this appeal by allowance, we interpret for the first time the General Assembly’s 2002 amendments to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110, commonly known as the compulsory joinder statute. Generally speaking, the compulsory joinder statute sets forth the requirements for when a current prosecution is precluded due to a former prosecution for a different offense. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude the Superior Court properly found that the instant prosecution for criminal conspiracy was barred by the compulsory joinder statute because the offenses “occurred within the same…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Buffalo Township v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Commonwealth v. HudeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Commonwealth v. BoothSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  4. Martin v. DOT, Bureau of Driver LicensingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. Commonwealth v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963

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

3Cited by129 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. SegidaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  2. Commonwealth v. JohnsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Commonwealth v. Giulian v. Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  4. Commonwealth, Aplt v. Gross, E.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  5. Commonwealth v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009

124 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