Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Housergreen2 sentences2015Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128, 1135 (Pa. 2011). 2015Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128, 1135 (Pa. 2011), cert. denied, Houser v. Pennsylvania, 132 S. Ct. 1715 (2012). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Hansleygreen2 sentences2022As the Commonwealth correctly recognizes, “Before the issue of self- defense may be submitted to a jury for consideration, a valid claim of self- defense must be made out as a matter of law, and this determination must be made by the trial judge.” Commonwealth Brief at 15 (quoting Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 , 420 (Pa. Super. 2011)). 2022As the Commonwealth correctly recognizes, “Before the issue of self- defense may be submitted to a jury for consideration, a valid claim of self- defense must be made out as a matter of law, and this determination must be made by the trial judge.” Commonwealth Brief at 15 (quoting Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 420 (Pa. Super. 2011)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Applebygreen1 sentence2015"The rationale for the statutory prohibition of 18 Pa.C.S.A. section 6105 is to protect the public from convicted criminals who possess firearms ... and protecting the public from a firearm in the possession or under the control of a convicted criminal." Commonwealth v. Appleby, 856 A.2d 191, 195 (Pa. Super. 2004) In addressing the issue of self defense, our Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Moore, 49 A.3d 896 , 903 (Pa. Super. 2012), vacated on other grounds, 103 A.3d 1240 (Pa. 2014), held that "since Appellant maintained control over the gun after he needed to use it in self-defense, we need | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Streetgreen1 sentence2015“Third-degree murder does not require the specific intent to kill, though it does require malice.” Commonwealth v. Street, 69 A.3d 628, 631-632 (Pa. Super. 2013). -9- J-S42030-15 “Malice exists where there is a wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of social duty, although a particular person may not be intended to be injured.” Tielsch, supra. Further, if a defendant presents evidence raising an issue of self- defense, the Commonwealth has the burden to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Roland W. Browngreen2 sentences2007See Brown, 490 F.2d at 767 (explaining that state of mind evidence is relevant where an issue of self defense, suicide, or accidental death is raised by the defendant). 2007See Brown, 490 F.2d at 767 (explaining that state of mind evidence is relevant where an issue of self defense, suicide, or accidental death is raised by the defendant). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Houser v. Pennsylvania
green
1 sentence2015Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128, 1135 (Pa. 2011), cert. denied, Houser v. Pennsylvania, 132 S. Ct. 1715 (2012). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Moore, J.
green
1 sentence2015"The rationale for the statutory prohibition of 18 Pa.C.S.A. section 6105 is to protect the public from convicted criminals who possess firearms ... and protecting the public from a firearm in the possession or under the control of a convicted criminal." Commonwealth v. Appleby, 856 A.2d 191, 195 (Pa. Super. 2004) In addressing the issue of self defense, our Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Moore, 49 A.3d 896 , 903 (Pa. Super. 2012), vacated on other grounds, 103 A.3d 1240 (Pa. 2014), held that "since Appellant maintained control over the gun after he needed to use it in self-defense, we need | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Cain
green
2 sentences1991See 18 Pa.C.S. § 2503(b); Commonwealth v. Cain, 484 Pa. 240 , 398 A.2d 1359 (1979). 1991See 18 Pa.C.S. § 2503(b); Commonwealth v. Cain, 484 Pa. 240 , 398 A.2d 1359 (1979). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.