Commonwealth v. Simione
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Jones:
While I agree with that portion of the majority opinion which holds that appellant cannot be convicted as a seller, I cannot agree with the majority’s decision to limit their review to “whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that appellant ‘sold’ a prohibited drug.”
Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted by a jury for violation of Section 4(q) of The Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, Act of September 26, 1961, P. L. 1664, §4(q), 35 P.S. §780-4(q). It should be noted that the language of the indictment returned by the grand jury was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ARMAOSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Demczuk EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971