Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 4/28/1978

Commonwealth v. Riggins

Citations

386 A.2d 520
478 Pa. 222
1978 Pa. LEXIS 617

How courts have described this case

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

police officer’s testimony that he knew where defendant lived did not indicate defendant had prior criminal activity
To conclude that appellant had committed prior crimes from a detective's single statement that he knew where appellant lived, the jury would have to indulge in gross speculation
To conclude that appellant had committed prior crimes from a detective’s single statement that he knew where appellant lived, the jury would have to indulge in gross speculation
since exhibit was not specifically prohibited by Rule 1114, only question was whether exhibit was unduly prejudicial
since exhibit was not specifically prohibited by Rule 1114, only question was whether exhibit was unduly prejudicial
“To conclude that appellant had committed prior crimes from a detective’s single statement that he knew where appellant lived, the jury would have to indulge in gross speculation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Eagen, Jones, Manderino, Nix, O'Brien, Pomeroy, Roberts

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

20 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.