Commonwealth v. Holstein
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
KLEIN, J.:
¶ 1 It is undisputed that Kristine Holstein was only a spectator at the drag race. Therefore, the narrow issue is whether merely being a spectator fits within the statutory prohibition of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3367(b) that “no person shall in any manner participate in any such race, competition, contest, test or exhibition.” [Emphasis supplied.]
¶ 2 I believe the answer has to be “no” for two reasons, and accordingly am compelled to dissent: first, because the legislature could have said “spectator” if it wished to criminalize merely being a spectator, as can be seen in…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Rieck Investment Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Commonwealth v. McClinticSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Commonwealth v. DicksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Commonwealth v. RyanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Commonwealth v. ScolieriSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.