Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Smith

Citations

  • 544 A.2d 943
  • 518 Pa. 524
  • 1988 Pa. LEXIS 188

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that severance of two informations was not reviewable under Rule 311(d)
  • concluding there was a “break in the chain of events” between a theft and a murder that occurred more than a day and ten miles apart from the theft
  • holding order granting severance order was interlocutory and not appealable by Commonwealth, as order did not substantially handicap prosecution, which was still able to seek convictions on charges, albeit in two separate proceedings
  • reaffirming holding in Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A.2d 304 (1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 910, 84 S.Ct. 204, 11 L.Ed.2d 149 (1963), that an appeal from a suppression order, although interlocutory, is a right enjoyed by the Commonwealth
  • reaffirming holding in Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A.2d 304 (1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 910, 84 S.Ct. 204, 11 L.Ed.2d 149 (1963), that an appeal from a suppression order, although interlocutory, is a right enjoyed by the Commonwealth

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

5 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.