Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Carter

Citations

  • 219 Pa. Super. 280
  • 281 A.2d 75
  • 1971 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1373

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that “a defendant’s presence is required only where there is a reasonable substantial relation to the fullness of the opportunity to defend the charge”
  • no due process violation where defendant not present when alternate juror substituted as a qualified replacement juror
  • no due process violation where defendant not present when alternate juror substituted as a qualified replacement juror
  • adopting the Snyder “fullness of the opportunity” test
  • adopting the Snyder \fullness of the opportunity\ test
  • adopting the Snyder “fullness of the opportunity” test

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Weight, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Ceroone

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

14 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.