Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Byers

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 14, 1983No. 1123PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SPAETH, Judge:

This is an appeal from a judgment of sentence for receiving stolen property. Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient, and that trial counsel was ineffective. Finding these arguments without merit, we affirm.

-1-

The test of sufficiency is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and then drawing all reasonable inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, the trier of fact could find that every element of the crime charged had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Russell, 313 Pa.Super. 534, 460 A.2d 316 (1983).

He…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. RussellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Warren v. Mosites Construction Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Commonwealth v. WorrellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. United States v. James Herbert DuffyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972
  5. Ledford v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BennettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  2. Commonwealth v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. State v. RoundsSupreme Court of Vermont · 2011
  4. Commonwealth v. RileySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  5. Commonwealth v. CessnaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

2 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