Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. MICHAEL GRAY (06/11/82)

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


June 11, 1982

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
MICHAEL GRAY, APPELLANT

No. 667 Philadelphia, 1980, Appeal from Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Delaware County at No. 354 of 1978.

Before Brosky, Johnson and Popovich, JJ.

Per Curiam:

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

MEMORANDUM

Appellant, Michael Gray, was convicted after a jury trial of rape*fn1, terroristic threats*fn2, and possession of an instrument of crime*fn3 Post-verdict motions were denied, and this appeal followed. We affirm.

On appeal, appellant raises eleven issues. They are whether the trial court erred: (1) when it failed to suppress evidence on the grounds that probable cause was deficient to issue a search warrant; (2) when it failed to suppress the evidence on the ground that the information supporting the warrant was stale; (3) when it failed to grant a bifurcated trial (i.e., the issue of criminal responsibility is heard to a separate jury from the other issues in the case); (4) when it failed to grant appellant's motion for a mistrial because the prosecution mentioned photographs in its opening statement; (5) when it failed to grant a mistrial because appellant's actions during the trial had a bearing on his competency to stand trial; (6) in permitting a psychiatrist to testify concerning a statement made to him by the victim; (7) in permitting the police officer to proffer rebuttal testimony on appellant's appearance when no testimony had been presented previously on that issue; (8) in refusing appellant's request for an instruction concerning appellant's capacity to form a specific intent; (9) in refusing appellant's request for an instruction that "Psychiatry is a recognized and important branch of modern medicine."; (10) in refusing to grant appellant's motion for a demurrer; and (11) in refusing to grant appellant's motion for a directed verdict because the appellant was insane. Because the trial court adequately disposed of the issues appellant raises, there is no need to comment further.*fn4

Judgment of sentence affirmed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.