Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4909 (2026)
Witness or informant taking bribe.
✓ 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
§ 4909. Witness or informant taking bribe.
A person commits a felony of the third degree if he solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit in consideration of his doing any of the things specified in section 4952(a)(1) through (6) (relating to intimidation of witnesses or victims).
(Dec. 4, 1980, P.L.1097, No.187, eff. 60 days)
Cross References. Section 4909 is referred to in section 5708 of the title; section 5552 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Williams, 896 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2006).
Commonwealth v. Williams, 896 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2006). “This circumstance underscores the pitfalls of pro se advocacy and validates this Court's strong opposition to such ill-prepared forays into legal practice. The trial court was correct in finding the Commonwealth was authorized to investigate appellant's alibi fabrication scheme…”
Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007). “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 4909 ("A person commits a felony of the third degree if he solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit in consideration of his doing any of the things specified in section 4952(a)(1) through (6) (relating to intimidation of witnesses or victims)) and 18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Kimmel, 125 A.3d 1272 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015). “§ 3702; 18 Pa.C.S. § 4909. In addition, the definition of certain theft offenses comes under the heading of "Grading of theft offenses[.”
Commonwealth v. Childress, 799 A.2d 805 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). “A subsidiary contention is that when testifying, Bell and Williams violated 18 Pa.C.S. § 4909. ¶ 6 In order to prevail on a claim that counsel was ineffective, the defendant has the burden of establishing that the underlying claim has arguable merit, counsel’s action or inaction…”
In Re: Brown, P., Appeal of: Brown, P. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). “Brown’s affidavit was made subject to 18 Pa.C.S. § 4909, i.e. Witness or informant taking bribes but should have been made subject to 18 Pa.”
Ross v. Ross (W.D. Pa. 2024). “Ross violated 18 Pa. C.S. § 4909, which criminalizes the making of false statements to authorities.”
Com. v. Kimmel, L. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015). “§ 3702; 18 Pa.C.S. § 4909. In addition, the definition of certain theft offenses comes under the heading of “Grading of theft offenses[.”
Com. v. Thomas, Y. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015). “§ 4952[,] the predicate offense of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4909, and [Thomas] was not charged with conspiracy to bribe nor did the Commonwealth alleged or argue accomplice liability? 3.”
Off. of Disciplinary Couns. v. Barrish, 7 Pa. D. & C.5th 85 (Pa. 2005). “(15) Respondent attached to the application a signed verification certifying that the facts set forth in the application were “true and correct to the best of [respondent’s] knowledge, information and belief,” and that the verification was “taken, subject to the penalties of 18…”
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.