§ 312. De minimis infractions.
(a) General rule.--The court shall dismiss a prosecution if, having regard to the nature of the conduct
charged to constitute an offense and the nature of the attendant circumstances, it
finds that the conduct of the defendant:
(1) was within a customary license or tolerance, neither expressly negatived by the person
whose interest was infringed nor inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining
the offense;
(2) did not actually cause or threaten the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the
law defining the offense or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation
of conviction; or
(3) presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged
by the General Assembly or other authority in forbidding the offense.
(b) Written statement.--The court shall not dismiss a prosecution under this section without filing a written
statement of its reasons, except that if the attorney for the Commonwealth is the
moving party for such dismissal no such written statement need be filed.
(June 22, 1978, P.L.494, No.73, eff. 60 days)
1978 Amendment. Act 73 amended subsec. (b).
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. Omar (2009)
pa · cites it 6×
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 312. [7] Echoing the trial court, Appellees argue that "[b]y criminalizing the mere `use, display.”
Commonwealth v. Eliason (1986)
pa · cites it 4×
“18 Pa.C.S. § 312. Appellant argues that the facts of this case do not warrant the stigma of a criminal conviction, and that the trial judge abused his discretion in failing to dismiss the charges.”
Commonwealth v. Duncan (1976)
pasuperct · cites it 2×
“Crimes Code, supra, 18 Pa. C.S. § 312. In a series of cases presenting a similar issue, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that a statute must be limited in application "`.”
Commonwealth v. Gemelli (1984)
pa · cites it 2×
“The Commonwealth next argues that the trial court erred (1) in raising the issue of whether these charges were de mini nis infractions sua sponte or, in the alternative, (2) by quashing the entire information based, in part, on the de minimis infraction statute, 18 Pa.C.S. §…”
Commonwealth v. Mays (1977)
pasuperct · cites it 2×
“[2] And, if a defendant were charged with robbery on the basis of a threat so patently ridiculous that non-compliance was the reaction of his victim and the only conceivable reaction of any hypothetical future victim, the court would have authority to dismiss the prosecution…”
Commonwealth v. Cordoba (2006)
pasuperct
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 312 (stating, "The court shall dismiss a prosecution if, having regard to the nature of the conduct charged to constitute an offense and the nature of the attendant circumstances, it finds that the conduct of the defendant: .”
Commonwealth v. Stetler (2014)
pasuperct
“As set forth in detail above, the evidence supports the conclusion that Defendant’s violations of theft and conflict of interest statutes resulted in misuse of taxpayer funds far in excess of a de minimus amount, based upon the value of staff salaries and misappropriation of…”
Scurfield Coal, Inc. v. Commonwealth (1990)
pacommwct · cites it 2×
“18 Pa.C.S. § 312. The purpose of this section is to remove petty infractions from the category of criminal conduct.”
Dunn v. United States (2009)
dc
“17-A, § 12 (2006); 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 312 (1998). The D.C. Council, however, has not joined ranks with the “very limited” number of states that have adopted the defense.”
Commonwealth v. Dodge (1981)
pasuperct
“Appellant also argues that her violation of Section 5902(a)(1) was de minimis under 18 Pa.C.S. § 312. Brief for Appellant at 40.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 312(1) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 312(a) — 11 cases
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 312(a)(1) — 2 cases
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 312(a)(2) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 312(a)(l) — 1 case
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.