Commonwealth v. Ostolaza (1979)

See 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(iv) (stating that a robbery is committed when, during the course of committing a theft, the accused “inflicts bodily injury upon another or threatens another with or intentionally puts him in fear of immediate bodily injury”) (emphasis added); but cf. Ostolaza, supra (wherein the defendant acted alone when he wrestled the victim’s wallet away from her).

See Commonwealth v. Stots, 227 Pa.Super. 279 , 281 n.3, 324 A.2d 480 , 481 n.3 (1974) ("Whether conviction for a less serious or less culpable offense may lie on an indictment for another more serious or more *126 culpable crime is principally a question of whether the indictment will fairly put the defendant on notice of the charges against him so that he may prepare an adequate defense.") See also Commonwealth v. Bryant, 282 Pa.Super. 600 , 423 A.2d 407 (1980); Commonwealt…

See Brown, 484 A.2d at 742 ; Commonwealth v. Ostolaza, 267 Pa.Super. 451 , 406 A.2d 1128, 1130-31 (1979) (stating in dicta that defendant who grabbed a wallet out of the victim’s hand resulting in a brief tug-of-war for the wallet could have been charged and convicted of robbery under section 3701(a)(l)(v)); see generally Jones, 771 A.2d at 799 . 3 ¶ 19 In his first claim, Bedell also raises an argument related to his counsel’s statement that Bedell had pushed the victim upo…

“The test for determining whether an offense is a lesser included offense is whether all the essential elements of the lesser offense are included in the greater offense.” Commonwealth v. Ostolaza, 267 Pa.Super. 451, 457 , 406 A.2d 1128, 1131 (1979).

“The test for determining whether an offense is a lesser included offense is whether all the essential elements of the lesser offense are included in the greater offense.” Com. v. Ostolaza, 267 Pa. Superior Ct. 451, 456 , 406 A. 2d 1128, 1131 (1979).

“The test for determining whether an offense is a lesser included offense is whether all the essential elements of the lesser offense are included in the greater offense.” Com. v. Ostolaza, _ Pa. Superior Ct. _, _, 406 A. 2d 1128, 1131 (1979).

See also Commonwealth v. Ostolaza, 267 Pa.Super. 451 , 406 A.2d 1128 (1979); Commonwealth v. Farmer, 244 Pa.Super. 334 , 368 A.2d 748 (1976).

See Commonwealth v. Ostolaza, 406 A.2d 1128, 1130 (Pa. Super. 1979) (finding “brief tug of war over the wallet” coupled with victim’s testimony she was “afraid” was insufficient to conclude defendant intentionally placed victim in fear of serious bodily injury); Commonwealth v. Scott, 369 A.2d 809, 813 (Pa. Super. 1976) (reversing delinquency adjudication on charge of robbery under Section 3701(a)(1)(i)-(iii) when defendant simply snatched complainant’s purse; “there is no e…

See Appellant’s Brief at 14-15 (relying on Commonwealth v. Ostolaza, 406 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 1979) (“The facts that the victim resisted, that there was a brief tug over the wallet, and that the victim testified that she was afraid, were not sufficient to prove that [the] appellant intended that the victim be, or indeed that she was, placed in fear of serious bodily injury, as required under the Crimes Code.”)).