Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Austin

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 27, 1990No. 1182PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OLSZEWSKI, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order granting defendant-appellee’s motion to quash a murder charge, bill of information no. 3251. The motion to quash was granted because there was nothing in the evidence to indicate an intentional killing or that malice was present or could be inferred.

The Commonwealth requests that we reverse the order and remand the case for trial, contending that evidence presented at the preliminary hearing established the elements of premeditation and malice. We find that the Commonwealth has failed to prove its argument; consequently, we affirm.

Appellee was…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. O'SEAROSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. Commonwealth v. WojdakSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Commonwealth v. YoungSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Commonwealth v. IngramSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  5. Commonwealth v. PalmerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Stidham v. Millvale Sportsmen's ClubSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  2. Commonwealth v. GonzalesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Commonwealth v. LopezSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Commonwealth v. PackardSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. Commonwealth v. BigelowSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

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