Com. v. Mattis

13 Citing cases

  1. Com. v. Schmidt

    2007 Pa. Super. 50 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007)   Cited 20 times

    Under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, no person "shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa.Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996) (citations omitted). The Pennsylvania Constitution similarly provides that "No person shall, for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. . . ."

  2. Commonwealth v. Bey

    No. J-A23025-19 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 24, 2020)

    This court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary." Commonwealth v. Mattis, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (Pa. Super. 1996). Under both the federal and state constitutions, double jeopardy bars retrial where the prosecutor's misconduct was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.

  3. Commonwealth v. Farrow

    2017 Pa. Super. 249 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that "guilty without further penalty" is a sentence and, as such, convictions are not merged where such a sentence is imposed

    This Court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary. Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa.Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996)."The Double Jeopardy Clause, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person shall ‘be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.’ "

  4. Commonwealth v. Jones

    2017 Pa. Super. 195 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017)   Cited 3 times

    Appellant's challenge raises a question of law. As with all legal questions, our standard of review is de novo.See generally Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa.Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996). Retrial after a hung jury normally does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

  5. Commonwealth v. Boyd

    J-A04036-17 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 14, 2017)

    "An appeal grounded in double jeopardy raises a question of constitutional law." Commonwealth v. Wood, 803 A.2d 217, 220 (Pa. Super. 2002) (quoting Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa. Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996)). "This court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary."

  6. Commonwealth v. Culver

    2012 Pa. Super. 172 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012)   Cited 38 times
    Finding misconduct where the prosecutor said during closing argument that the defendant "the most unreliable historian we're ever going to meet," was "probably the most unreliable, unbelievable person that you are ever going to come across," and was a "compulsive or pathological liar"

    This court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary.” Commonwealth v. Wood, 803 A.2d 217, 220 (Pa.Super.2002) (quoting Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa.Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996)). In determining whether double jeopardy bars retrial following a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct, we adhere to the following standards:

  7. Commonwealth v. Anderson

    2011 Pa. Super. 233 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011)   Cited 17 times
    Holding double jeopardy barred retrial based upon prosecutor's intent to taint a child witness subversively; prosecutor met with a child witness without a third party present in violation of a prior court order, spent hours with the child in advance of a competency hearing, told the child both the questions he would be asked and the answers the child should provide, asked those questions at the competency hearing, and lied about his meeting with the child

    “An appeal grounded in double jeopardy raises a question of constitutional law.” Commonwealth v. Wood, 803 A.2d 217, 220 (Pa.Super.2002) (quoting Commonwealth v. Mattis, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (Pa.Super.1996)[, appeal denied, 547 Pa. 752, 692 A.2d 564 (1997) ] ). “This court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary.” Wood, supra at 220 (quoting Mattis, supra at 410).

  8. Hill v. Randolph

    2011 Pa. Super. 115 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011)   Cited 5 times
    Permitting multiple contempt counts for violations of protective order when defendant entered victim's home and assaulted victim

    This Court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary. Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa.Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996). "The Double Jeopardy Clause, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person shall `be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.'"

  9. Comm. v. Jackson

    2010 Pa. Super. 226 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010)   Cited 38 times
    Concluding that double jeopardy prohibited the Commonwealth from trying a defendant for criminal trespass after a previous finding of criminal contempt based on the same conduct

    This court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary." Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa.Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996). "The Double Jeopardy Clause, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person shall `be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.'"

  10. Com. v. Vargas

    2008 Pa. Super. 75 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008)   Cited 43 times

    ¶ 11 "An appeal grounded in double jeopardy raises a question of constitutional law." Commonwealth v. Wood, 803 A.2d 217, 220 (Pa.Super. 2002) (quoting Commonwealth v. Mattis, 454 Pa. Super. 605, 686 A.2d 408, 410 (1996)). "This court's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary."