Opinion

Commonwealth v. Caufman

  • 417 Pa. Super. 131
  • 611 A.2d 1300
  • 1992 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2148
Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jul 14, 1992
Status
Published
Author
Rowley
On the bench
Rowley, President Judge, and Montemuro and Hester
Cited by
3 cases

The opinion

ROWLEY, President Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

I am not convinced that the record before us discloses a failure on the part of the Commonwealth to act with due diligence. According to the Commonwealth, the “main investigator” was on vacation until the second week of November. Following his return to work he “investigated the accident” and then the charge at issue here was filed. I agree with the trial court that, on the basis of this record, “the Commonwealth acted diligently and in a manner which did not offend the rationale of the double jeopardy prohibition.”

For this reason I would affirm the order of the trial court and remand the case for trial.

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.