Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

417 Pa. Super. 131

611 A.2d 1300

Commonwealth v. Caufman

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 14, 1992

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1992-07-14

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1996

6 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-07-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ROWLEY, President Judge,

¶1dissenting:

¶2I respectfully dissent.

¶3I 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.”

¶4For this reason I would affirm the order of the trial court and remand the case for trial.

/417/pasuper/131 · .json · Public domain