Commonwealth v. Cruz
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Hoffman, J.,
Appellant contends he is entitled to a new trial because of the prejudicial effect of being seen handcuffed in the courtroom by members of the jury.
Appellant was tried with a codefendant on the charge of possession of marijuana. The jury found the appellant guilty and the codefendant not guilty.
The record reveals that appellant was handcuffed when the court recessed for the day while a portion of the jury was still in the jury box and on the following morning he was brought into the courtroom Avhile handcuffed. Defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial Avas denied.
The…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Eaddy v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1946
- State v. RobertsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1965
- Theodore Way v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1960
- Henry Edward Watt v. Ray H. Page, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, and State of OklahomaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1972
- Commonwealth v. KeelerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- State v. FinchWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. ClarkWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. TolleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- Commonwealth v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Commonwealth v. EvansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.