Commonwealth v. Mayhue

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting a plain meaning argument which failed to read the section with reference to, and in light of, other sections
• finding there was no violation of Massiah where Mayhue initated conversations with a jailhouse informant
• explaining that, at the trial of the appellant for murdering his wife, evidence that the appellant had participated in the murder of a person whom he had paid to kill his wife, but who had failed to do so, was “essential to complete the story behind the [wife’s] death”
• finding that evidence that the defendant helped to murder the person whom he had paid to kill his wife, but who failed to do so, was admissible at the defendant’s trial for murdering his wife because it was “essential to complete the story behind [her] death”
• finding that evidence that the defendant helped to murder the person whom he had paid to kill his wife, but who failed to do so, was admissible at the defendant’s trial for murdering his wife because it was “essential to complete the story behind [her] death”
• finding that evidence that the defendant helped to murder the person whom he had paid to kill his wife, but who failed to do so, was admissible at the defendant’s trial for murdering his wife because it was “essential to complete the story behind [her] death”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).