Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Perez

Citations

  • 931 A.2d 703
  • 2007 Pa. Super. 235
  • 2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2234
  • 2007 WL 2258257

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the “successful proof of a conspiracy makes each co-conspirator fully liable for all of the drugs recovered, without the necessity of proving constructive possession.”
  • concluding that “[b]ecause the Commonwealth proved conspiracy, it did not need to prove [a]ppellant’s constructive possession of the drugs[,]” as the drugs in the home were attributable to appellant and his co-conspirator
  • noting that circumstantial evidence may prove a conspiracy
  • “successful proof of a conspiracy makes each co-conspirator fully liable for all of the drugs recovered, without the necessity of proving constructive possession”
  • evidence sufficient to prove appellant's guilt for PWID and conspiracy, where appellant sold drugs supplied to him by his cohort
  • “[S]uccessful proof of a conspiracy makes each co- -7- J-S43010-15 conspirator fully liable for all of the drugs recovered, without the necessity of proving constructive possession.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gantman, Kelly

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 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.