Smith v. Commonwealth
Annotate this CaseAppellant was convicted of wanton murder, three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment, and two counts of second-degree wanton endangerment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly denied Appellant's pretrial motion to suppress the recorded interview he gave to the police shortly after his arrest; (2) Appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict on two of the counts of first-degree wanton endangerment, as sufficient evidence supported the charges; (3) while the trial court erred by failing to give a definitional instruction corresponding with the self-protection instruction, the error did not result in a manifest injustice under the circumstances of this case; and (4) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant's request to give an instruction to the jury defining reasonable doubt.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.