Opinion

Commonwealth v. Johnson

  • 435 Pa. Super. 132
  • 645 A.2d 234
Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Dec 7, 1994
Status
Published
Author
Johnson
On the bench
Rowley, McEwen, Sole, Beck, Tamilia, Popovich, Johnson, Hudock, Elliott
Cited by
9 cases

"neither our state Constitution nor our statutes create a separate juvenile court’ with separate subject matter jurisdiction.”

How later courts described this case

  • "neither our state Constitution nor our statutes create a separate juvenile court’ with separate subject matter jurisdiction.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

*162 JOHNSON, Judge,

concurring:

When Stephon Johnson was adjudicated delinquent, jeopardy attached. The Commonwealth now asks that we hold that the trial court erred when it transferred ■ this case to the juvenile division so that they may again prosecute Johnson, this time in the criminal division. The double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions protect against this. If the Commonwealth wished to question the trial court order transferring this matter, the proper time to do so was before Johnson was adjudicated delinquent and jeopardy attached. I must, therefore, agree that this appeal is untimely.

McEWEN, J., joins in this concurring statement.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.