Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 502 (2026)
Justification a defense.
✓ 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
§ 502. Justification a defense.
In any prosecution based on conduct which is justifiable under this chapter, justification is a defense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Samuel, 590 A.2d 1245 (Pa. 1991).
Commonwealth v. Samuel, 590 A.2d 1245 (Pa. 1991). “[3] Throughout this entire episode, including the arrival of a rescue team and the police, the Bregenzer's 5 year old daughter, Gina, was asleep on the couch in the living room.”
Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 472 A.2d 1099 (Pa. 1984). “18 Pa.C.S. § 502. *285 The general rule is contained in 18 Pa.”
Thornburgh v. Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986). “Under Pennsylvania criminal law, justification is a defense, see 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 502 (1982), and, under the general rule of justification, conduct is deemed justified if "the actor believes [it] to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to.”
Com. v. Thomas, T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 502. Section 506(a) of the Code provides: The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when: (1) the actor would be justified under section 505 (relating to use of force in self-protection) in using such force to…”
Com. v. Moore, K. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 502. Section 505 of the Crimes Code explains that the use of force upon another person “is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person…”
Com. v. Sanchez, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024). “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 502. We have explained that [t]he use of force against a person is justified when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person.”
Com. v. Turner, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024). “See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 502, 505. We have explained that -6- J-S03019-24 [t]he use of force against a person is justified when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person.”
Deyo v. Eck (E.D. Pa. 2023). “§ 312 (de minimis infractions); 18 Pa. C.S. § 502 (justification a defense); 18 Pa.”
Com. v. Bentley, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024). “See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 502, 505. We have explained that [t]he use of force against a person is justified when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person.”
Com. v. Baptiste, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 502. We have explained that [t]he use of force against a person is justified when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person.”
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.