Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Capitolo

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 1, 1984No. 811-815PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SPAETH, Judge:

These appeals are from judgments of sentence for criminal trespass. Appellants’ convictions arise from an incident that occurred during a demonstration against nuclear power at the Shippingport Nuclear Power Plant. Appellants argue that the trial court should have permitted them to prove that their conduct was justified under Section 503 of the Crimes Code. We agree and therefore vacate the *66judgments of sentence and remand for a new trial at which appellants shall be permitted to prove, if they can, that their conduct was justified.

We have divided our discussion explaining this…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Vaca v. SipesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Washington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  4. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  5. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1963

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. CapitoloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Commonwealth v. BerriganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Andrews v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1990
  4. Commonwealth v. BerriganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  5. Commonwealth v. ZimmermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

12 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