Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Caufman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 20, 1995Published

1DissentCappy, Justice

Because I cannot agree with the Majority’s conclusion that appellee’s prosecution for homicide by vehicle is permitted under principles of double jeopardy, I must dissent. In addition, I write separately to express my strong disagreement with the Majority’s reasoning and analysis regarding the interplay between 18 Pa.C.S. § 110, the compulsory joinder rule, federal double jeopardy and state double jeopardy principles.

This case is unique in that both the trial court and the Superior Court relied exclusively upon a decision of the United States Supreme Court, to wit, Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S.…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Brown v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Green v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. United States v. DixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. Grady v. CorbinSupreme Court of the United States · 1990

26 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