From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Lineman

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT
Aug 7, 2020
237 A.3d 963 (Pa. 2020)

Opinion

No. 4 EAP 2020

08-07-2020

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Andrew LINEMAN, Appellant

James Richard Lloyd III, Esq., Parkinson, Tarpey & Lloyd, for Appellant. Peter Rosalsky, Esq., Defender Association of Philadelphia, for Appellant Amicus Curiae. Shawn Dontaye Baldwin, Esq., Michael Lee Erlich, Esq., Lawrence Jonathan Goode, Esq., Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, for Appellee.


ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 2020, the order of the Superior Court is REVERSED based on Commonwealth v. Torres, 564 Pa. 219, 766 A.2d 342, 345 (2001) (explaining that a fact-finder's mere disbelief of the defendant's testimony going forward with the evidence relative to a justification defense is "no substitute for the proof the Commonwealth was required to provide to disprove the self-defense claim").


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Lineman

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT
Aug 7, 2020
237 A.3d 963 (Pa. 2020)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Lineman

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. ANDREW LINEMAN, Appellant

Court:SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

Date published: Aug 7, 2020

Citations

237 A.3d 963 (Pa. 2020)

Citing Cases

Com. v. McIntyre

In a per curiam order, the High Court stated it was reversing the decision "based on Commonwealth v. Torres,…