Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Heaton

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 25, 1983No. Nos. 480 and 728Published

1DissentLipez, Judge

It is ironic indeed that the defendants are granted new trials by reason of their own self-inflicted wounds in opening up the very area which the majority considers prejudicial. I dissent.

It is important to bear in mind that both defendants were charged with three burglaries, all of which were consolidated for trial without objection. According to the testimony of their accomplice, Kathryn Lamey, all three offenses occurred on September 14, 1979 within the time frame of about seven hours—the Castanea Fire Hall, around 2:00 a.m., the Winner Packing Plant at 3:00 a.m., and the Womeldorf cabin…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Evans v. Otis Elevator Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  2. Commonwealth v. StokesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. Commonwealth v. BowermasterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Commonwealth v. StakleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  5. Carl v. KurtzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

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