Commonwealth v. Carr
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHoffman, Judge
I concur in the majority’s disposition of appellant’s Rule 1100 issue. I dissent, however, from the determination that the lower court properly applied the Williams standard in ruling on the admissibility of appellant’s confession. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of sentence and remand the case to the lower court for a new trial. Because I would remand the case for a new trial, I would find it unnecessary to address appellant’s remaining issues.
Appellant contends that the lower court erred in giving retroactive effect to the standard announced in Commonwealth v. Williams, 504 Pa.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United States v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Commonwealth v. GraySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Commonwealth v. CabezaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Commonwealth v. McCutchenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Commonwealth v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.