Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. DeSumma

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 31, 1989No. 124 E. D. Appeal Docket, 1988PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

FLAHERTY, Justice.

This appeal requires us to interpret Pa.R.Crim.P. 229 in reviewing the propriety of amending a criminal complaint at trial to include victims of assault who were not named in the original complaint. The trial court allowed the amendment on the ground that appellant was not surprised or prejudiced by the addition of new victims, and appellant was convicted. We reverse, due to violation of Rule 229.

The appellant, Frank DeSumma, was offended one evening by the inconsiderate driving of Frank O'Hara, who cut him off in traffic. Appellant exchanged angry words…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. StanleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  2. Commonwealth v. FrisbieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Commonwealth v. StanleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Commonwealth v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Commonwealth v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. GlassSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  2. Commonwealth v. GrekisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Commonwealth v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Commonwealth v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. Commonwealth v. RozplochiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

11 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