Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Sargent

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 3, 1986No. 02951 PHL 84PublishedCited by 11 opinions

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

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Hanna v. PlumerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Dick v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  4. 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
  5. Commonwealth v. WrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Dunlap v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Commonwealth v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Commonwealth v. RossSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. Commonwealth v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. Commonwealth v. WynnSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

6 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