Commonwealth v. Trolene
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Commonwealth v. StorySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Commonwealth v. TeadaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Commonwealth v. KellySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Commonwealth v. CreamerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Commonwealth v. HirschSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.