Commonwealth v. O'SEARO
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentManderino, Justice
I dissent from the majority’s statement that the trial court correctly instructed the jury that appellant’s act of pointing a gun at a vital part of another’s body is, in itself, enough for the jury to infer that the killing was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. See Commonwealth v. Kittreles, Pa., 350 A.2d 842 (1976) (Manderino dissenting joined by Roberts, J.); Commonwealth v. Thomas, Pa., 350 A.2d 847 (1976) (Manderino dissenting joined by Roberts, J.). The majority states that evidence of the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body is sufficient to support an inference of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Commonwealth v. PetrakovichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Commonwealth v. HornbergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- Commonwealth v. CommanderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- Commonwealth v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Commonwealth v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.