Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Wiggins

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 14, 1974No. Appeal, 1429Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Spaeth, J.:

I believe that the district attorney’s characterization of appellant as a “dangerous man” in closing argument was sufficiently prejudicial (and unprofessional) to warrant the granting of a new trial.

The limits of permissible argument by a prosecutor to a jury are set forth in ABA Standards, The Prosecution Function §5.8 at 126:

“(a) The prosecutor may argue all reasonable inferences from evidence in the record. It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.
“(b) It is…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. WableSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  2. Commonwealth v. LipscombSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Commonwealth v. MartinolichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  4. Commonwealth v. RussellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  5. Commonwealth v. CapallaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

4 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