# Commonwealth v. Littlejohn

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 24, 1969 · 433 Pa. 336

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9699651

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. Littlejohn, Appellant; Commonwealth v. Archambault, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 24, 1969
- **Citations:** 433 Pa. 336; 250 A.2d 811; 1969 Pa. LEXIS 573
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Bell
- **Judges:** Roberts, Bell, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Beien, Bobeets, Eagkn
- **Cited by:** 52 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9699651

## Opinion text

*352 Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
I concur in the Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Littlejohn. I dissent from the Court’s decision and Opinion in Commonwealth v. Archambault, which completely changes the very long and well established law of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, if Justice Roberts is right, then every defendant who obtains a new trial after a conviction of any and every crime cannot, on re-conviction at his new trial, receive a higher or greater sentence than was imposed at his first trial; and this would be so even if the evidence at re-trial was different from and stronger than the evidence at his first trial and warranted a more severe sentence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9699651. Public record. Not legal advice.