Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

605 Pa. 132

987 A.2d 716

Commonwealth v. Kneller

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 31, 2009

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2009-12-31

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 2010

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[T]he Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the issue REMANDED to the Superior Court for further proceedings pursuant to Judge Stevens' dissenting opinion. Commonwealth v. Kneller, 971 A.2d 495, 504 (Pa.Super.2009) (en banc ) (Stevens, J., dissenting). The Commonwealth, as verdict winner, is entitled to have the facts reviewed in the light most favorable to it. Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 570 Pa. 117 , 808 A.2d 893, 907-08 (2002). The facts, viewed accordingly, reveal no immediate need to kill the dog, a directive by [Kneller] to her co-defendant to kill the dog, and the unquestionably malicious beating of the dog before it was shot. These facts provide sufficient evidence to support [Kneller's] conviction of conspiracy to commit cruelty to animals, and should not have been undone because of considerations of a dog owner's authority to humanely shoot the dog. See Commonwealth v. Murphy, 577 Pa. 275 , 844 A.2d 1228, 1238 (2004) (conspirator responsible for acts of co-conspirator done in furtherance of agreement). Jurisdiction relinquished.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 2010 Pa. Super. 122 - Commonwealth v. Kneller

Relies on Commonwealth v. Drumheller · Commonwealth v. Murphy · 2009 Pa. Super. 18 - Commonwealth v. Kneller

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2009-12-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2 AND NOW, this 31st day of December, 2009, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the issue REMANDED to the Superior Court for further proceedings pursuant to Judge Stevens’ dissenting opinion. Commonwealth v. Kneller, 971 A.2d 495, 504 (Pa.Super.2009) ien banc) (Stevens, J., dissenting). The Commonwealth, as verdict winner, is entitled to have the facts reviewed in the light most favorable to it. Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 570 Pa. 117, 808 A.2d 893, 907-08 (2002). The facts, viewed accordingly, reveal no immediate need to kill the dog, a directive by respondent to her co-defendant to kill the dog, and the unquestionably malicious beating of the dog before it was shot. These facts provide sufficient evidence to support respondent’s conviction of conspiracy to commit cruelty to animals, and should not have been undone because of considerations of a dog owner’s authority to humanely shoot the dog. See Commonwealth v. Murphy, 577 Pa. 275, 844 A.2d 1228, 1238 (2004) (conspirator responsible for acts of co-conspirator done in furtherance of agreement). Jurisdiction relinquished.

/605/pa/132 · .json · Public domain