Commonwealth v. McGuire
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
SPAETH, President Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
The principal issue on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in holding that the defense of entrapment is available only to a defendant who admits to all of the elements of the offense charged. I agree with the majority that the trial court did err, and I therefore concur in its order granting a new trial. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the defendant must “admit to at least some of the elements [of the offense] charged.” Majority op. at 1151. I believe the defense of entrapment *338should be available even if the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Sherman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- United States v. Anthony J. Demma, United States of America v. Henry BrulayCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- People v. PerezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- David Louis Hansford v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1962
- People v. D'AngeloMichigan Supreme Court · 1977
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.