Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Smith

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 7, 1994PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KELLY, Judge:

The Commonwealth asks us to determine whether the trial court erred in its order entered May 19, 1993, denying the Commonwealth’s motion to use the transcript of the preliminary hearing for purposes of introducing the substantive testimony of its key witness, Blaine Cain. The specific circumstances of this case compel us to affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. On June 25, 1992, appellee was charged by criminal complaint with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and delivery of a controlled substance. 1 A preliminary hearing…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Idaho v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. United States v. Milton Edward BaileyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
  4. Commonwealth v. EvansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  5. Commonwealth v. BazemoreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Cruz-CentenoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. People v. FrySupreme Court of Colorado · 2004
  3. Cosmas v. Bloomingdales Bros., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Commonwealth v. PearsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. Commonwealth v. BellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998

29 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