Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 3/6/1981

Commonwealth v. Crawford

Citations

427 A.2d 166
285 Pa. Super. 169
1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2327

How courts have described this case

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

stating to invalidate conviction because defendant was not expressly told facts he already believed to exist would be tantamount to allowing evidence within the knowledge of defendant and available to him at trial can still be considered “after-discovered”
to be guilty of theft by unlawful taking, defendant must unlawfully take, or exercise control over, movable property of another with intent to deprive him thereof
a defendant cannot claim he has discovered new evidence simply because he had not been expressly told of that evidence
a defendant cannot claim he has discovered new evidence simply because he had not been 12 expressly told of that evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Price, Hester, Cavanaugh

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

38 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.