Comm. v. Hanibal (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-162-1997] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellee : : : v. : : : SHELDON HANNIBAL, : : Appellant : : No. 81 Capital Appeal Docket Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, October 25, 1994, Criminal Action 93-04-2839 ARGUED: October 20, 1997 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO DECIDED: June 20, 2000 I concur in the result reached by the majority. In my view, any error which may have occurred in the instructions regarding accomplice liability was harmless. The evidence in this case clearly established that Appellant was the actual shooter, and not the accomplice. Therefore, any irregularity in the trial court s accomplice instruction could not have affected Appellant s verdict and thus, must be viewed as harmless error. Accordingly, I agree with the majority that Appellant is not entitled to a new trial on this basis.
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.
