Ernest Potts is appealing his conviction for first-degree murder. He claims that the use of accomplice liability theory based on circumstantial evidence was improper, and that his trial counsel was ineffective. The court must decide if there is enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and if Potts is legally accountable for the conduct of Owens as an accomplice.
Commonwealth v. Potts (1989)
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
388 Pa. Super. 593, 566 A.2d 287
Learn more about this case at [ Ссылка ]
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: [ Ссылка ]
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: [ Ссылка ]
