Commonwealth v. Nelson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
*495CERCONE, President Judge:
I dissent.
While I agree with the majority that there are many ways by which the Commonwealth might have proved appellant’s age, I do not find these to be dispositive of appellant’s contention in the instant case, where the trial judge, sitting as a factfinder, specifically and singly listed appellant’s pre-trial colloquy as the court’s basis for finding appellant to be over eighteen. Though the general rule is that a judge, as factfinder, is presumed to disregard inadmissible evidence and consider only competent evidence, Commonwealth v. Davis, 491 Pa. 363, 421 A.2d…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Commonwealth v. StorySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Commonwealth v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Commonwealth v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Commonwealth v. LawsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.