Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 7/1/1974

Commonwealth v. Rose

Citations

457 Pa. 380
321 A.2d 880
1974 Pa. LEXIS 847

How courts have described this case

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

holding that where intoxication is a defense, prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not lack requisite intent
similarly discussing the type of evidence necessary to place in issue a defense of intoxication
similarly discussing the type of evidence necessary to place in issue a defense of intoxication
similarly discussing the type of evidence necessary to place in issue a defense of intoxication
similarly discussing the type of evidence necessary to place in issue a defense of intoxication
\The Commonwealth bears a never shifting burden of proving each and every essential element of the crime charged and the defendant need not offer any defense whatsoever.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

33 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.