Commonwealth v. Burnsworth
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
543 Pa. 18 (1995)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Mark Allen Burnsworth (defendant) pled guilty to two counts of unlawful manufacturing of marijuana and two counts of possession with intent to deliver marijuana plants. Burnsworth’s guilty plea was conditioned on his right to contest the application of Pennsylvania’s mandatory-minimum-sentence provisions concerning the number of marijuana plants confiscated by police. The sentencing statute tied the length of a defendant’s mandatory minimum sentence to the number of live marijuana plants involved in the prosecution. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (plaintiff) argued that police had confiscated 76 live marijuana plants from Burnsworth. Burnsworth presented expert testimony that marijuana plants often germinate by lateral root systems in which stems shoot up from the roots. Thus, from a biological and research perspective, a tap system with multiple stems could be defined as a single plant. Based on the testimony of Burnsworth’s expert witness, the trial court determined that the term “plant” as used in the sentencing statute was unconstitutionally vague. Pennsylvania appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Montemuro, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
