# Commonwealth v. Kichline

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 6, 1976 · 468 Pa. 265

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712653

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. James Preston KICHLINE, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 6, 1976
- **Citations:** 468 Pa. 265; 361 A.2d 282; 1976 Pa. LEXIS 676
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Eagen
- **Judges:** Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino, Jones
- **Cited by:** 233 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/9712653

## Opinion text

EAGEN, Justice
(dissenting).
While I have great respect for the wisdom and judgment of the distinguished jurist who presided in the instant trial proceedings, I am convinced it was an abuse of discretion to deny a change of venue.
In my view, Commonwealth v. Pierce, 451 Pa. 190 , 303 A.2d 209 (1973), is controlling. That the petrial publicity in this case was “inherently prejudicial” and jeopardized Kichline’s right to a fair trial to me is beyond question. Under such circumstances, whether or not any of the jurors who decided the case had any prior opinions as to the accused’s guilt or innocence is irrelevant.
I would award a new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712653. Public record. Not legal advice.