33. Denied.
34. Admitted.
35. Admitted.
36. Denied. The Commonwealth's Information has sufficient specificity. In Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the Supreme Court wrote: "Any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant does not specify how the Commonwealth's information is vague or how the dictates of the Apprendi Court are violated."
In Commonwealth. v. Jones, 912 A.2d 268 (Pa., 2006), the court wrote," "Indictments must be read in a common-sense manner, and are not to be construed in an overly technical sense." Commonwealth v. Pope, 455 Pa. 384, 317 A.2d 887,890 (1974). "At an earlier stage of legal development, indictments were strictly and technically construed, and the slightest imprecision in wording was often considered incurable error. Today, however, such arguments are unpersuasive." Id. (internal citations omitted). This Court has upheld criminal indictments possessing a flaw and found them to be constitutional because they put the defendant on sufficient notice of the charge against him or her. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Kelly, 487 Pa. 174, 409 A.2d 21(1979) (upholding indictment that charged defendant with possession of heroin when the controlled substance in fact was methamphetamine because defendant was well advised of the nature of the offense charged)."
In Commonwealth. v. Thomas, 408 A.2d 1148, 268 Pa.Super. 566 (Pa. Super.1979), the court wrote, "All indictment charging murder generally is adequate notice that the defendant may be tried and convicted of first degree murder. Commonwealth v. Koch, 446 Pa. 469, 473, 288 A.2d 791, 793 (1972). The instant indictment, which recited a willful killing with malice, charged murder generally and was sufficient to support a conviction of first degree murder."
In Commonwealth v. Koch, 446 Pa. 469, 473, 288 A.2d 791, 793 (1972), the court noted, "An indictment charging murder generally is adequate notice that the defendant may be tried and convicted of first degree murder and fully satisfies the purposes of Rule 213 to insure adequate notice of the charges. See Commonwealth ex rel. Kerekes v. Maroney, 423 Pa. 337, 340, 223 A.2d 699, 701 (1966); Commonwealth ex rel. Andrews v. Russell, 420 Pa. 4, 6, 215 A.2d 857, 858 (1966)."
WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth moves this Honorable Court to deny the Defendant's Motion to Quash.
34. Admitted.
35. Admitted.
36. Denied. The Commonwealth's Information has sufficient specificity. In Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the Supreme Court wrote: "Any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant does not specify how the Commonwealth's information is vague or how the dictates of the Apprendi Court are violated."
In Commonwealth. v. Jones, 912 A.2d 268 (Pa., 2006), the court wrote," "Indictments must be read in a common-sense manner, and are not to be construed in an overly technical sense." Commonwealth v. Pope, 455 Pa. 384, 317 A.2d 887,890 (1974). "At an earlier stage of legal development, indictments were strictly and technically construed, and the slightest imprecision in wording was often considered incurable error. Today, however, such arguments are unpersuasive." Id. (internal citations omitted). This Court has upheld criminal indictments possessing a flaw and found them to be constitutional because they put the defendant on sufficient notice of the charge against him or her. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Kelly, 487 Pa. 174, 409 A.2d 21(1979) (upholding indictment that charged defendant with possession of heroin when the controlled substance in fact was methamphetamine because defendant was well advised of the nature of the offense charged)."
In Commonwealth. v. Thomas, 408 A.2d 1148, 268 Pa.Super. 566 (Pa. Super.1979), the court wrote, "All indictment charging murder generally is adequate notice that the defendant may be tried and convicted of first degree murder. Commonwealth v. Koch, 446 Pa. 469, 473, 288 A.2d 791, 793 (1972). The instant indictment, which recited a willful killing with malice, charged murder generally and was sufficient to support a conviction of first degree murder."
In Commonwealth v. Koch, 446 Pa. 469, 473, 288 A.2d 791, 793 (1972), the court noted, "An indictment charging murder generally is adequate notice that the defendant may be tried and convicted of first degree murder and fully satisfies the purposes of Rule 213 to insure adequate notice of the charges. See Commonwealth ex rel. Kerekes v. Maroney, 423 Pa. 337, 340, 223 A.2d 699, 701 (1966); Commonwealth ex rel. Andrews v. Russell, 420 Pa. 4, 6, 215 A.2d 857, 858 (1966)."
WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth moves this Honorable Court to deny the Defendant's Motion to Quash.
