From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Canteen Corp. v. Com

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District
Jul 20, 2004
578 Pa. 504 (Pa. 2004)

Summary

rejecting arguments that testimony unconstitutionally focused jury on victim's life and amounted to "super aggravating factor"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Frein

Opinion

[J-86-2004].

Decided: July 20, 2004.

Appeal No. 57 MAP 2003 from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on March 6, 2003 sustaining the Exceptions filed by Petitioner to the Order entered February 8, 2002 at No. 856 FR 1997.

Michael Adam Roman, Clinton G. Smith, Harrisburg, for Com.

Robert R. Batt, Peter L. Faber, for Pro-Hac-Vice.


ORDER


AND NOW, this 20th day of July, 2004, the order of the Commonwealth Court entered in Canteen Corp. v. Commonwealth, 818 A.2d 594 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003), is affirmed.


Summaries of

Canteen Corp. v. Com

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District
Jul 20, 2004
578 Pa. 504 (Pa. 2004)

rejecting arguments that testimony unconstitutionally focused jury on victim's life and amounted to "super aggravating factor"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Frein

rejecting arguments that testimony unconstitutionally focused jury on victim's life and amounted to “super aggravating factor”

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Ballard

following Mitchell

Summary of this case from Clifton v. Allegheny County
Case details for

Canteen Corp. v. Com

Case Details

Full title:CANTEEN CORPORATION, Appellee v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District

Date published: Jul 20, 2004

Citations

578 Pa. 504 (Pa. 2004)
854 A.2d 440

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Frein

Id. at 154. Finally, we held in Ballard that the appellant's claims failed, as they involved "a full panoply…

Com. v. Singley

During the penalty phase of a capital murder trial in this Commonwealth, "evidence concerning the victim and…