Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Banks

Citations

  • 447 Pa. 356
  • 285 A.2d 506
  • 1971 Pa. LEXIS 1168

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • not error for trial court to let jury determine whether witness was an accomplice instead of declaring it as a matter of law, since instruction, taken as a whole, clearly instructed jury as to care to be used when considering witness’ testimony
  • dissenting opinion of the writer, joined by Mr. Justice Roberts
  • dissenting opinion of the writer, joined by Mr. Justice ROBERTS
  • dissenting opinion of the writer, joined by Mr. Justice Roberts
  • dissenting opinion of Pomeroy, J., joined by Roberts, J.
  • trial court did not err in allowing jury to determine whether witness was an accomplice instead of declaring it as a matter of law, since the instruction, taken as a whole, clearly instructed the jury of the care and scrutiny to be used when considering the witness’ testimony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bell, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Barbieri, Jones

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.