Commonwealth v. Thorpe, 342 Pa. Super. 316

Commonwealth v. Thorpe

342 Pa. Super. 316 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1985

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Today we decided that double jeopardy principles do not bar reprosecution of appellant’s co-defendant on charges arising from the killing of Zollie Perry. Appellant raises the identical issue decided in that case, and we therefore affirm on the basis of Commonwealth v. Simons, 342 Pa.Super. 281, 492 A.2d 1119 (1985).

Order affirmed.

WIEAND, J., files a concurring opinion. BROSKY, J., joins, and files a concurring statement. DEL SOLE, J., files a dissenting statement in which POPOVICH, J., joins. SPAETH, President Judge, files a dissenting statement.

Concurrence Opinion

WIEAND, Judge,

concurring:

I concur for reasons appearing in my concurring opim m in Commonwealth v. Simons, 342 Pa.Super. 281, 492 A.2d 1119 (1985).

Concurrence Opinion

BROSKY, Judge,

concurring:

I concur on the basis of my Concurring Opinion in Commonwealth v. Simons, 342 Pa.Super. 281, 492 A.2d 397 (J. 1927/83, filed May 10, 1985).

Dissenting Opinion

SPAETH, President Judge,

dissenting:

I dissent for the reasons stated in my Dissenting Opinion in Commonwealth v. Simons, 342 Pa.Super. 281, 492 A.2d 1119 J. E4001/84 (filed May 10, 1985).

Dissenting Opinion

DEL SOLE, Judge,

dissenting:

I dissent for reasons discussed in my Dissenting Opinion in Commonwealth v. Simons, 342 Pa.Super. 281, 492 A.2d 1119 J. E4001/84; filed May 10, 1985).

POPOVICH, J., joins.