Filter This View

  • Commonwealth v. Irland

    Publication Date: 2018-10-16
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Saylor
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1184

    The trial court erred in granting a petition for the forfeiture and destruction of defendant's firearm, seized by police during a road rage incident, as there was no historical foundation establishing common law civil forfeiture in the commonwealth and civil forfeiture of derivative contraband required statutory authorization. The high court affirmed the intermediate court's order.

  • Commonwealth v. Graham

    Publication Date: 2018-10-09
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals | Wrongful Death
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Olson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1197

    The trial court erred in excluding Centre County as a viable venue for this homicide case, involving defendant's alleged delivery of drugs resulting in death, where the statutory requirements for venue set forth at 18 Pa.C.S. §102 existed in both Clinton and Centre Counties. The appellate court vacated and remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Jackson

    Publication Date: 2018-10-09
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals | Evidence
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lehigh County
    Judge: Judge Steinberg
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1163

    The court denied pretrial motions to suppress and dismiss, because police did not exceed their authority in arresting defendant and conducting and inventory search.

  • Commonwealth v. Matthews

    Publication Date: 2018-10-09
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1195

    While the victim of a robbery during a pizza delivery may have mistakenly identified both assailants as African American, defendant, a Caucasian, was not entitled to relief from his robbery conviction since the evidence of record was sufficient to establish his identity as one of the two perpetrators. The appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction.

  • Commonwealth v. Crispell

    Publication Date: 2018-10-09
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals | Evidence
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1194

    While trial counsel failed to use evidence establishing that defendant's accomplice had scratches on his body, which evidence corroborated defendant's version of events leading to the criminal charges, defendant failed to demonstrate that he would have been convicted of something less than first-degree murder if only the jury had considered this evidence. The appellate court affirmed in part.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Arbitration Handbook 2024

    Authors: Hon. William A. Dreier, Robert E. Bartkus

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Commonwealth v. Andrews

    Publication Date: 2018-09-25
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Lazarus
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1133

    While defendant was convicted and sentenced prior to the date the U.S. Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Alleyne, he was entitled to resentencing under Alleyne where, due to his first Post Conviction Relief Act petition, defendant received reinstatement of his appellate rights and those rights were not resolved prior to the announcement of Alleyne. The appellate court affirmed an order granting defendant relief.

  • Commonwealth v. Cramer

    Publication Date: 2018-09-25
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Dubow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1135

    The trial court did not err in barring defendant's offer of DNA evidence regarding a rape victim's alleged sexual conduct with other partners where defendant asserted that the victim consented to sexual activity with him and, thus, the DNA evidence was not relevant to the issue of consent. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • Commonwealth v. Bidwell

    Publication Date: 2018-09-25
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1132

    The trial court did not err in precluding the Commonwealth from offering evidence of defendant's prior bad acts toward four women in his trial on charges of murdering his paramour where the proffered testimony did not establish a motive for the victim's murder or evidence any distinctive pattern of behavior. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's evidentiary order.

  • Commonwealth v. Durrett King

    Publication Date: 2018-09-18
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Murray
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1072

    Defendant raised a meritorious ineffective assistance of counsel claim where counsel failed to seek a jury instruction on a defense to the crime of fleeing or attempt to elude police relating to unmarked police cars where the police car involved, and driven by plain clothes detectives, did not display any identifying decals or graphics. The appellate court vacated an order denying defendant Post Conviction Relief Act relief and remanded for a hearing.

  • Commonwealth v. Kemp

    Publication Date: 2018-09-18
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1071

    The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence where the drug transactions at issue did not take place in or near his residence, as the facts connected the illegal transactions to defendant's residence in a common-sense way and permitted the issuing authority to conclude that drugs would likely be found there. The appellate court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.