Commonwealth ex rel. Smith v. Myers
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
438 Pa. 218, 261 A.2d 550 (1970)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
In 1947, in the course of an armed robbery committed by James Smith, Edward Hough, and David Almeida (defendants), police officers arrived at the scene and a gunfight ensued. A bullet struck and killed a bystander, but it was not clear whether one of the robbers or one of the police officers fired the fatal bullet. A jury convicted the robbers of the bystander's felony murder, after the judge instructed the jury that who fired the fatal shot was irrelevant. The judge told the jury to convict the robbers if they found that the armed robbery was the proximate cause of the bystander's death. Almeida appealed his conviction. In 1949, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania approved the trial judge's instruction and affirmed Almeida's conviction. In 1966, Smith petitioned for habeas corpus on the grounds that the trial judge's instruction denied him due process. A lower court denied the petition, and Smith appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the composition of which had changed since 1949.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O'Brien, J.)
Dissent (Bell, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
