Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Richard A. CHAMBERS, Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2017-09-06
Citations: 170 A.3d 1030
Docket Number: No. 147 EAL 2017
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Richard A. CHAMBERS, Petitioner
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 170
Pages: 1030–1031

Head Matter:
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Richard A. CHAMBERS, Petitioner
No. 147 EAL 2017
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
September 6, 2017

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 6th day of September 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues,' as stated by petitioner are:
(1) Is not the Superior Court's holding in a published opinion that a defendant can be liable for the underlying conduct of another by virtue of being - a .co-conspirator inconsistent with the plain language of the governing statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 306, which provides for accomplice liability only, and with this Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Knox, 105 A.3d 1194 (Pa. 2014)?
(2) Did not the. Superior Court erroneously analyze accomplice liability, and incorrectly conclude that the evidence was sufficient to convict on that theory?
(3) Did not the Superior Court err in . concluding that the evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of conspiracy to assault the victim with Mace under 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, since he neither intended nor agreed to commit this crime?