Commonwealth v. Karaffa
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentCastille, Justice
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s conclusion that it was reversible error for the trial court to submit written instructions to the jury in this case. I believe that Commonwealth v. Oleynik, 524 Pa. 41, 568 A.2d 1238 (1990) was wrongly decided, and that trial courts should have discretion to submit standard written instructions to juries in appropriate circumstances.
The holding of Oleynik and the majority’s position in the instant matter increase the risk, particularly in long and complicated trials, that the jury will be unable to properly apply the law to the facts of the case…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- People v. SheldonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- Haupt v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Commonwealth v. OleynikSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Sanders v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1976
- State v. JacksonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1986
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.