Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. Cannon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided June 21, 2011No. 41 EAP 2009PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice ORIE MELVIN.
We granted review to consider the propriety of the Superior Court’s extension of the Bruton1 rule to a circumstance involving prosecutor commentary. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the prosecutor’s remark did not negate the redaction and, therefore, did not trigger the Bruton rule. Moreover, any potential for prejudice arising from the prosecutor’s comment was cured by the numerous cautionary instructions to *497the jury. Accordingly, we reverse the grant of a new trial and reinstate the judgment of sentence.
On March 11, 2005, at approximately 8:00 a.m.,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Richardson v. MarshSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Gray v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Commonwealth v. TravagliaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Commonwealth v. TraversSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Commonwealth v. RoneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Commonwealth v. FreemanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Commonwealth v. YoheSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Commonwealth v. JamesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- In the Interest of: N.C., Appeal of: CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.