Commonwealth v. Casper
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
HOFFMAN, Judge:
Appellant contends that: 1) Insufficient evidence exists to support his conviction for “macing,” (demanding money for political purposes from employees of the Commonwealth); 2) insufficient evidence exists to support his convictions for conspiracy and criminal solicitation to “mace”; 3) the verdict of guilty of extortion is inconsistent with the verdicts of not guilty of conspiracy and solicitation to extort charged in the same indictment; and 4) the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for severance of the indictments. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.
On May…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ClairSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Commonwealth v. CasperSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Commonwealth v. TateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Commonwealth v. CarterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Commonwealth v. RoseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.