Com. v. Carelli
| Decision Date | 06 February 1989 |
| Citation | 521 Pa. 609,557 A.2d 341 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Carelli (Ronald M.) NO. 498W.D.1988 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
To continue reading
Request your trial
9 cases
-
Commonwealth v. Williams
... ... Pa.Super. 494] Neil J. Marcus, Monongahela, for ... appellant ... John ... C. Pettit, Dist. Atty., Washington, for Com., ... appellee ... Before ... OLSZEWSKI, MONTEMURO and KELLY, JJ ... KELLY, Judge: ... In this ... appeal we are ... evidence offered as "not credible," even where ... direct contradiction is not present." ... Commonwealth ... v. Carelli, 377 Pa.Super. 117, 130 n. 1, 546 A.2d 1185, ... 1191 n. 1 (1988), allocatur denied 521 Pa. 609, 557 A.2d 341 ... (1988) (emphasis in original); ... ...
-
Reich v. Minnicus
... ... denied, 313 Md. 31, 542 A.2d 858 (1988); State v. Carter, 54 Or.App. 852, 636 P.2d 460 (1981); Commonwealth v. Carelli, 377 Pa.Super. 117, 546 A.2d 1185, 1193-94 (1988), appeal denied, 521 Pa. 609, 557 A.2d 341 (1989). Although the plaintiff does not separately ... ...
-
Com. v. Grundy
... ... Regardless of whether the owner of the garage complex had a privacy interest in the general garage space inside the fence, neither Grundy nor the others had a privacy interest in the common area. See Commonwealth v. Carelli, 377 Pa.Super. 117, 546 A.2d 1185, 1192 (1988) (collecting cases) ("Generally, a subjective expectation of privacy as to that which is located in an area of common access will be deemed to be unreasonable"). It is irrelevant whether or not the owner gave permission. Any one of a number of people ... ...
-
Com. v. Thomas
... ... Commonwealth v. Petras, 368 Pa.Super. 372, 376, 534 A.2d 483, 485 (1987); see also Commonwealth v. Swavely, 382 Pa.Super. 59, 64, 554 A.2d 946, 948 (1989); Commonwealth v. Davis, 381 Pa.Super. 483, 491, 554 A.2d 104, 110 (1989); Commonwealth v. Carelli, 377 Pa.Super. 117, 125, 546 A.2d 1185, 1188 (1988), allocatur denied, 521 Pa. 609, 557 A.2d 341 (1989) ... Appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to and preserve through post-trial motions, the Commonwealth's introduction of certain alleged ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results