Commonwealth v. Sargent
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
HOFFMAN, Judge:
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence for robbery and criminal conspiracy. Appellant contends that (1) he is entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor injected her opinion into her closing argument to the jury, and (2) the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act, 42 Pa.C. S.A. § 9713, is unconstitutional for the following reasons: (a) § 9713(c), which dictates the burden of proof to be employed at sentencing, violates Article V, § 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which gives the judiciary exclusive control over matters of practice and procedure in the courts; (b)…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Hanna v. PlumerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Dick v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., in No. 75-2405 v. Videfreeze Corporation, and David E. Chinnery Development Corp., Inno. 75-2406Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Commonwealth v. WrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Dunlap v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2013
- Commonwealth v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Commonwealth v. RossSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Commonwealth v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Commonwealth v. WynnSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.