Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 503 (2026)

Justification generally.

✓ 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

§ 503. Justification generally.

(a) General rule.--Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable if:

(1) the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged;

(2) neither this title nor other law defining the offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear.

(b) Choice of evils.--When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the situation requiring a choice of harms or evils or in appraising the necessity for his conduct, the justification afforded by this section is unavailable in a prosecution for any offense for which recklessness or negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish culpability.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 37 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 472 A.2d 1099 (Pa. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 472 A.2d 1099 (Pa. 1984). · cites it 14× “" Both the general justification defense found at 18 Pa.C.S. § 503 and that at 18 Pa.C.S. § 510 require that the belief of the actor that his action is necessary be a reasonable belief.”

Commonwealth v. Grimes, 982 A.2d 559 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “¶ 6 Prior to Appellant’s trial, the Commonwealth moved to preclude Appellant from arguing the defense of justification *562 under 18 Pa.C.S. § 503. On November 5, 2007, the trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion to preclude the justification defense, finding that it was…”

Commonwealth v. Fowlin, 710 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1998). · cites it 4× “There are two relevant statutory provisions: 18 Pa.C.S § 503 [1] and 18 Pa.C.S. § 505.”

Commonwealth v. Capitolo, 498 A.2d 806 (Pa. 1985). · cites it 2× “Our statute (18 Pa.C.S. § 503) adopts the view that a principle of necessity, properly conceived, affords a general justification for conduct that otherwise would constitute an offense; and that such a qualification, like the requirements of culpability, is essential to the…”

Commonwealth v. Miklos, 159 A.3d 962 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). “…to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged[.]” 18 Pa.C.S. § 503.”

Commonwealth v. Clouser, 998 A.2d 656 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). “— When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the situation requiring a choice of harms or evils or in appraising the necessity for his conduct, the justification afforded by this section is unavailable in a prosecution for any offense for which recklessness or…”

Commonwealth v. Pelzer, 612 A.2d 407 (Pa. 1992). · cites it 2× “Appellant cites 18 Pa.C.S. § 503 as a defense, suggesting that he was entitled to a charge on justification.”

Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 535 A.2d 91 (Pa. 1987). · cites it 2× “The trial court's limitations on questions probing possible bias on the part of jurors during voir dire.”

Commonwealth v. DeSumma, 559 A.2d 521 (Pa. 1989). · cites it 2× “" *41 The prejudice engendered by the eleventh-hour amendment is obvious. It was implicit in the quoted portion of Judge Wieand's dissenting opinion, supra, in that at least two defenses justification under 18 Pa.”

Commonwealth v. Walley, 353 A.2d 396 (Pa. 1976). “In light of the verdict of voluntary manslaughter, however, it is immaterial whether the appellant entertained such a belief. An unreasonable belief that the use of deadly force is justified is not a complete defense to a homicide charge, but serves to reduce the degree of guilt…”

Holman v. City of York, Pa., 564 F.3d 225 (3rd Cir. 2009). “at 24; see 18 Pa.C.S. § 503(a). Trespass under 18 Pa.”

Toops v. State, 643 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “; 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 503. The state of Missouri specifically excludes the availability of the defense for the crimes of Murder and certain other felonies, Mo.”

Show all 37 citing cases →

— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 503(a) — 8 cases

Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 472 A.2d 1099 (Pa. 1984). “" Both the general justification defense found at 18 Pa.C.S. § 503 and that at 18 Pa.C.S. § 510 require that the belief of the actor that his action is necessary be a reasonable belief.”

Holman v. City of York, Pa., 564 F.3d 225 (3rd Cir. 2009). “at 24; see 18 Pa.C.S. § 503(a). Trespass under 18 Pa.”

Commonwealth v. Billings, 793 A.2d 914 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).

Com. v. Sobrado-Rivera, E. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).

Com. v. McLendon, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).

— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 503(a)(1) — 5 cases

Commonwealth v. Pelzer, 612 A.2d 407 (Pa. 1992). “Appellant cites 18 Pa.C.S. § 503 as a defense, suggesting that he was entitled to a charge on justification.”

Com. v. Sobrado-Rivera, E. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).

Com. v. Brolin, A. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).

Com. v. Lowery, M. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).

— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 503(a)(2) — 1 case

— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 503(a)(3) — 1 case

— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 503(b) — 2 cases

Commonwealth v. Fowlin, 710 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1998). “There are two relevant statutory provisions: 18 Pa.C.S § 503 [1] and 18 Pa.C.S. § 505.”

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.