Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4907 (2026)
Tampering with witnesses and informants (Repealed).
✓ 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
§ 4907. Tampering with witnesses and informants (Repealed).
1980 Repeal. Section 4907 was repealed December 4, 1980 (P.L.1097, No.187), effective in 60 days. The subject matter is now contained in Subchapter B of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1976–2015 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Doughty, J., Aplt., 126 A.3d 951 (Pa. 2015).
Commonwealth v. Doughty, J., Aplt., 126 A.3d 951 (Pa. 2015). “Since the prior version of the intimidation statute used the term “induce[,]” 18 Pa.C.S. § 4907 (repealed), the guards averred the legislature did not intend to use “induce” and “intimidate” interchangeably in § 4952.”
Commonwealth v. Brachbill, 555 A.2d 82 (Pa. 1989). “Appellants further contend that the courts below incorrectly held that the term "intimidate," *539 under the Intimidation of Witnesses Act, and the term "induce," under the preceding Tampering with Witnesses Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4907 (Repealed), have the same meaning and encompass…”
Commonwealth v. Madison, 397 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979). “334; 18 Pa.C.S. § 4907. Since appellant was convicted of tampering with the complainant by the use of a threat, his offense was a felony of the third degree.”
Commonwealth v. Fontana, 401 A.2d 1361 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979). “Joiner's testimony indicates that regardless of whether he was directly told to refrain from testifying, he clearly inferred this to be appellant's intended message.”
Commonwealth v. Kwatkoski, 406 A.2d 1102 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979). “” 18 Pa.C.S. § 4907(a). Appellant appeared to have knowledge of the subpoena and its subject matter prior to engaging Mr.”
Commonwealth v. Bundridge, 407 A.2d 406 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980). “Because his direct-appeal counsel would then have failed to raise an issue requiring reversal of appellant's conviction, his assistance must be deemed ineffective and appellant should then be discharged.”
Commonwealth v. Tiberi, 361 A.2d 318 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976). “334, §1, 18 Pa. C.S. §4907 (1973). 5 . Indeed, that case produced a 4-3 split in the Court, with two of the majority merely concurring in the result.”
Commonwealth v. Young, 468 A.2d 1127 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983). “This section repealed and superseded 18 Pa.C.S. § 4907, which made it a criminal offense to attempt to "induce or otherwise cause a witness or informant to .”
In re Anonymous No. 67 D.B. 82, 4 Pa. D. & C.4th 586 (Pa. 1989). “On December 4, 1981, respondent was convicted by a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of [ ] County of tampering with a witness in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. §4907 1 On July 9, 1982, Respondent was sentenced by the Honorable [A] as follows: (1) two-year probation; (2) a condition…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4907(a) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Kwatkoski, 406 A.2d 1102 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979). “” 18 Pa.C.S. § 4907(a). Appellant appeared to have knowledge of the subpoena and its subject matter prior to engaging Mr.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4907(a)(1) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Kwatkoski, 406 A.2d 1102 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979). “” 18 Pa.C.S. § 4907(a). Appellant appeared to have knowledge of the subpoena and its subject matter prior to engaging Mr.”
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.