Court Opinion

ID: 9700952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:54:39.40891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:16.433044
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the result of affirming the murder conviction. I dissent as to the dismissal of the assault charges. The majority opinion fails to recognize an exception to the general rule barring a subsequent prosecution for offenses arising out of the criminal transaction which resulted in the first prosecution. This exception is found in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110(1 )(iii)(A), which states that the former prosecution will bar the second prosecution for the same conduct unless “the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he is subsequently prosecuted each requires proof of a fact not required by the other and the law defining each of such offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil . . ..”
*543This section became effective subsequent to Campana I and is very similar to the exception argued for in Mr. Justice Eagen’s concurring opinion in Campana I.
Therefore, the assault conviction should be affirmed.