Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Trolene

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 9, 1979No. 1313Published

1DissentSpaeth, Judge

I disagree with the majority’s construction of Section 5101, and also with its view of the admissibility of the conspirator’s out-of-court statement.

-1-

Section 5101 provides: “A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function . . . .” The majority says that “a corrupt, intentional attempt to influence a judge’s decision in a pending criminal case . . . . [is] sufficient to prove the charge of obstruction of justice under § 5101.” Majority opinion at 1204.1 Thus the majority construes…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. StorySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  2. Commonwealth v. TeadaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Commonwealth v. KellySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  4. Commonwealth v. CreamerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  5. Commonwealth v. HirschSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1973

3 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