Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 4/30/1982

Commonwealth v. Taylor

Citations

445 A.2d 174
299 Pa. Super. 113
1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4077

How courts have described this case

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

holding that testimony of unavailable witness from witness's own trial was admissible at defendant's trial, as both had asserted entrapment defense involving same informant
holding that testimony of unavailable witness from witness's own trial was admissible at defendant's trial, as both had asserted entrapment defense involving same informant
holding evidence of prior discussions admissible at trial for later drug transaction to show how criminal activity was arranged
explaining that the later transaction could be admissible to explain discussions at the earlier sale; similarly, at trial for second sale, Commonwealth could refer back to first sale to explain how second sale was arranged
for prior recorded testimony to be admissible, issues in first proceeding and hence purpose for which it was there offered must have been such that present opponent, or some person in like interest, had adequate motive for testing on cross-examination credibility of testimony now offered
two drug sales in two months

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Spaeth, Hoffman, Van Voort

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

30 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.