Pa. Cons. Stat. » 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. (CRIMES AND OFFENSES) / Chapter 1
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 112 (2026)

 Former prosecution before court lacking jurisdiction or when fraudulently procured by the defendant.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 112.  Former prosecution before court lacking jurisdiction or when fraudulently procured by the defendant.

A prosecution is not a bar within the meaning of section 109 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecution for the same offense) through section 111 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecution in another jurisdiction) under any of the following circumstances:

(1)  The former prosecution was before a court which lacked jurisdiction over the defendant or the offense.

(2)  The former prosecution was procured by the defendant without the knowledge of the appropriate prosecuting officer and with the purpose of avoiding the sentence which might otherwise be imposed.

(3)  The former prosecution resulted in a judgment of conviction which was held invalid in a subsequent proceeding on a writ of habeas corpus, coram nobis or similar process.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1979–2021 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Perfetto, M., Aplt., 207 A.3d 812 (Pa. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Perfetto, M., Aplt., 207 A.3d 812 (Pa. 2019). · cites it 7× “18 Pa.C.S. § 112. The Commonwealth argued to the Superior Court that, pursuant to Subsection 112(1), compulsory joinder of criminal charges is not required where an initial prosecution proceeded before a court that lacked jurisdiction over offenses to be tried in a subsequent…”
Commonwealth v. Perfetto, 169 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 7× “Second, citing in support 18 Pa.C.S. § 112, the Commonwealth argues that joinder is not required where the initial prosecution proceeds before a court that lacks jurisdiction over offenses charged in a subsequent prosecution.”
Com. v. Atkinson, D., 245 A.3d 1140 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). · cites it 3× “The Commonwealth appealed and a divided en banc panel of our Court reversed the trial court, ____________________________________________ 4 On August 5, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Johnson’s petition for allowance of appeal on the following issue: Did not the…”
Com. v. Atkinson, D., 2021 Pa. Super. 16 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). · cites it 3× “The Commonwealth appealed and a divided en banc panel of our Court reversed the trial court, ____________________________________________ 4 On August 5, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Johnson’s petition for allowance of appeal on the following issue: Did not the…”
Com. v. Pammer, K., 232 A.3d 931 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “As a result of the holding in Perfetto II, the Commonwealth now seeks to continue its DUI prosecution of Appellant by utilizing an exception to § 110, codified at 18 Pa.C.S. § 112 and applied in Commonwealth v.”
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 669 A.2d 315 (Pa. 1995). “18 Pa.C.S. § 112. See also Commonwealth v.”
Commonwealth v. Guess, 404 A.2d 1330 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979). “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 112(1): “A prosecution is not a bar within the meaning of section 109 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecution for same offense) through section 111 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecution in…”
Com. v. Jefferson, N., 2019 Pa. Super. 302 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 112(1) (providing that a prior prosecution is not a bar when “(1) The former prosecution was before a court which lacked jurisdiction over the defendant or the offense”).”
Com. v. Jefferson, N., 220 A.3d 1096 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 112(1) (providing that a prior prosecution is not a bar when “(1) The former prosecution was before a court which lacked jurisdiction over the defendant or the offense”).”
Commonwealth v. Breitegan, 419 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980). “*186 The trial court concluded that the circumstances of the instant case fell within an exception established by Section 112(2) of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 112(2). The section provides: “A prosecution is not a bar within the meaning of section 109 of this title .”
Com. v. Atkinson, D., 2021 Pa. Super. 208 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). “” 18 Pa.C.S. § 112(1).14 ____________________________________________ 14 In 2002, the legislature amended section 110(1)(ii) to remove the statute’s prior language “within the jurisdiction of a single court” and replaced it with “occurred within the same judicial district as the…”
Com. v. Pammer, K., 2020 Pa. Super. 119 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “As a result of the holding in Perfetto II, the Commonwealth now seeks to continue its DUI prosecution of Appellant by utilizing an exception to § 110, codified at 18 Pa.C.S. § 112 and applied in Commonwealth v.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 112(1) — 25 cases
Commonwealth v. Perfetto, M., Aplt., 207 A.3d 812 (Pa. 2019). “18 Pa.C.S. § 112. The Commonwealth argued to the Superior Court that, pursuant to Subsection 112(1), compulsory joinder of criminal charges is not required where an initial prosecution proceeded before a court that lacked jurisdiction over offenses to be tried in a subsequent…”
Commonwealth v. Perfetto, 169 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). “Second, citing in support 18 Pa.C.S. § 112, the Commonwealth argues that joinder is not required where the initial prosecution proceeds before a court that lacks jurisdiction over offenses charged in a subsequent prosecution.”
Com. v. Atkinson, D., 245 A.3d 1140 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). “The Commonwealth appealed and a divided en banc panel of our Court reversed the trial court, ____________________________________________ 4 On August 5, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Johnson’s petition for allowance of appeal on the following issue: Did not the…”
Com. v. Atkinson, D., 2021 Pa. Super. 16 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). “The Commonwealth appealed and a divided en banc panel of our Court reversed the trial court, ____________________________________________ 4 On August 5, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Johnson’s petition for allowance of appeal on the following issue: Did not the…”
Commonwealth v. Guess, 404 A.2d 1330 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979). “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 112(1): “A prosecution is not a bar within the meaning of section 109 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecution for same offense) through section 111 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecution in…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 112(2) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Breitegan, 419 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980). “*186 The trial court concluded that the circumstances of the instant case fell within an exception established by Section 112(2) of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 112(2). The section provides: “A prosecution is not a bar within the meaning of section 109 of this title .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.