Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 3/22/2004

Commonwealth v. Murphy

Citations

844 A.2d 1228
577 Pa. 275
2004 Pa. LEXIS 556

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that the defendant was liable for PWID as an accomplice because the evidence established that he “intended to aid in the drug delivery and then actually aided the deliverer in making that delivery”
holding that a “jury could have found that [an accomplice] intended to aid [the principal] in delivering the drugs based [partly] on his act[] of questioning [an undercover officer] to determine if he was a police officer”
explaining that a conspirator is responsible for acts of co-conspirator done in furtherance of their agreement
stating that direct evidence of a conspiratorial agreement is rare and that such an agreement may be proven through circumstantial evidence
providing that direct evidence of a conspiratorial agreement is rare and that such an agreement may be proven through circumstantial evidence
stating that where the overt act requirement was satisfied when the co-conspirator delivered drugs to the buyer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Baer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

58 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

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

Other cases named Commonwealth v. Murphy

100 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

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.