From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Petitions for Allowance of Appeal

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 1, 1996
680 A.2d 1158 (Pa. 1996)

Summary

finding that a murder victim's statements regarding the breakdown of her relationship with the defendant and her stated intent to remove defendant from her life were admissible under the state-of-mind exception because they allowed the jury to infer defendant's possible motive

Summary of this case from Com. v. Mitchell

Opinion

May-July 1996.


Allocatur Disposition Lower Court Docket and Appeal Docket or Title Date Number Docket Citation _______________________ _______ _________ ___________ ___________

Com. v. Panner ......... 7/15/96 682 Denied 449 Pa.Super. W.D. 699, (1995) 673 A.2d 404

Com. v. Payne .......... 7/22/96 0068 Denied 449 Pa.Super. W.D. 725, (1996) 674 A.2d 318

Com. v. Renno .......... 8/14/96 172 Denied 451 Pa.Super. M.D. 577, (1996) 677 A.2d 1267

Com. v. Riggleman ...... 8/12/96 0269 Denied 451 Pa.Super. M.D. 602, (1996) 678 A.2d 833

Com. v. Rippy .......... 7/23/96 0600 Denied 434 Pa.Super. W.D. 722, (1995) 643 A.2d 708

Com. v. Rogers ......... 7/12/96 608 Denied 448 Pa.Super. W.D. 655, (1995) 671 A.2d 772

Com. v. Rutledge ....... 7/22/96 0120 Denied 451 Pa.Super. W.D. 577, (1996) 677 A.2d 1267

Com. v. Schmitt ........ 7/22/96 0135 Denied 450 Pa.Super. M.D. 717, (1996) 676 A.2d 285

Com. v. Simpson ........ 7/24/96 153, 159 Denied 451 Pa.Super. W.D. 577, (1996) 677 A.2d 1267

Com. v. Smith .......... 8/1/96 161 Denied 451 Pa.Super. W.D. 578, (1996) 677 A.2d 1267

Com. v. Sneeringer ..... 8/13/96 77 M.D. Denied 447 Pa.Super. (1996) 241, 668 A.2d 1167

Com. v. Snyder ......... 7/11/96 152 Denied 451 Pa.Super. W.D. 578, (1996) 677 A.2d 1268

Com. v. Sonoski ........ 8/7/96 215 Denied 451 Pa.Super. M.D. 604, (1996) 678 A.2d 835

Com. v. Tate ........... 7/22/96 008 Denied 449 Pa.Super. W.D. 727, (1996) 674 A.2d 320

Com. v. Taylor ......... 7/2/96 0133 Denied 450 Pa.Super. E.D. 719,

(1996) 676 A.2d 286


Summaries of

Petitions for Allowance of Appeal

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 1, 1996
680 A.2d 1158 (Pa. 1996)

finding that a murder victim's statements regarding the breakdown of her relationship with the defendant and her stated intent to remove defendant from her life were admissible under the state-of-mind exception because they allowed the jury to infer defendant's possible motive

Summary of this case from Com. v. Mitchell

affirming trial court's decision to allow witness to testify about victim's stated intention to sever relationship with accused; evidence of victim's intent to end relationship allowed jurors to infer accused's motive for killing victim

Summary of this case from Com. v. Levanduski
Case details for

Petitions for Allowance of Appeal

Case Details

Full title:DISPOSITIONS OF PETITIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jul 1, 1996

Citations

680 A.2d 1158 (Pa. 1996)
680 A.2d 1158

Citing Cases

Com. v. Levanduski

See also: Commonwealth v.Thornton, supra, (victim's statement that defendant and his brother were "after him"…

Commonwealth v. Luster

uksar, 559 Pa. 358, 740 A.2d 219, 225 (1999), cert. denied,531 U.S. 829, 121 S.Ct. 79, 148 L.Ed.2d 42 (2000)…