Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Smith

Citations

  • 570 A.2d 559
  • 391 Pa. Super. 154
  • 1990 Pa. Super. LEXIS 325

How courts have described this case

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

  • reiterating the “‘fundamental’” point that “‘an accused must suffer jeopardy before he can suffer double jeopardy’”
  • district attorney’s decision not to prosecute case after trial court granted suppression of evidence based on exclusionary rule was not an acquittal
  • district attorney's decision not to prosecute case after trial court granted suppression of evidence based on exclusionary rule was not an acquittal
  • it is “ ‘fundamental’ ” that “ ‘an accused must suffer jeopardy before he can suffer double jeopardy,’ ” and “ ‘[wjithout risk of a determination of guilt, jeopardy does not attach, and neither an appeal nor further prosecution constitutes double jeopardy.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wieand, Beck, Montgomery

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

23 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.