From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Drum

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jun 18, 2015
122 A.3d 1137 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015)

Summary

In Commonwealth v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9, 15, it was said: "At the common law murder is described to be, when a person of sound memory and discretion unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being..., with malice aforethought, expressed or implied.

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Thomas

Opinion

NO. 1251 MDA 2014

06-18-2015

Com. v. C. Drum


Opinion

Disposition: Affirmed.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Drum

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jun 18, 2015
122 A.3d 1137 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015)

In Commonwealth v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9, 15, it was said: "At the common law murder is described to be, when a person of sound memory and discretion unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being..., with malice aforethought, expressed or implied.

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Thomas

In Commonwealth v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9, in which the Pennsylvania law of homicide found its most classic expression, it was stated (p. 17) that the presumption arises "in the absence of qualifying facts.

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Kluska

In Commonwealth v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9, the jury were charged (p. 22): "If the mind be fairly satisfied of a fact, on the evidence — as much so as would induce a man of reasonable firmness and judgment to take the fact as true, and to act upon it in a matter of importance to himself, it would be sufficient to rest a verdict upon it.

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Kluska
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Drum

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. CAMERON ERWIN DRUM Appellant

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jun 18, 2015

Citations

122 A.3d 1137 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015)

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Redline

"The first has no share of guilt at all; the second very little; but the third is the highest crime against…

Commonwealth v. Wucherer

On this appeal defendant presents only one question for consideration: Did the court below err in charging…