Relevant Case Law

Flight to escape arrest does not constitute resisting arrest. In order to sustain a conviction for resisting arrest, the Commonwealth must prove that a defendant, intending to prevent a public servant from effecting a lawful arrest, created a substantial risk of bodily injury to the public servant or another, or that the defendant employed a means of resistance which justified or required substantial force to overcome the resistance.
View Now
A conviction for resisting arrest cannot stand where the underlying arrest is found to be unlawful. However, even an unlawful arrest does not justify physical resistance to the police, so intentionally causing physical injury to an officer while resisting an unlawful arrest can justify an arrest for the crime of assault.
View Now
Although an award of restitution lies within the discretion of the court, it should not be speculative or excessive. An adjudicatory court must consider four factors before imposing restitution: (1) the amount of loss suffered by the victim, (2) the fact that defendant's action caused the injury, (3) the amount awarded does not exceed defendant's ability to pay, and (4) the type of payment that will best serve the needs of the victim and the capabilities of the defendant. As to causation, the court must calculate the damages attributable to defendant's conduct. An award in excess of that amount is improper. To determine the correct amount of restitution, the court must apply a "but-for" analysis, in which the defendant is liable for restitution for all damages which would not have occurred but for his or her criminal conduct or occurred as a direct result of the crime. In calculating a child's ability to pay, the court must consider the earning capacity of the child. The following factors are relevant: the child's mental ability, maturity, and education; work history, if any, the likelihood of future employment and the ability to reasonably meet a restitution obligation as well as the impact of a restitution order on the child's ability to acquire higher education and thus increase his or her earning capacity. In determining how the child should make restitution, if the court determines that the child has no present ability to pay restitution, the court may defer imposition of a payment plan until an appropriate time. Another consideration must be the remaining period of jurisdiction to supervise and enforce the order of restitution since jurisdiction in a juvenile case ends at age 21. If there is any unpaid restitution at age 21, a proper court order is required to continue the child's obligation to make payment.
View Now
When an arrestee does not strike, push or kick an arresting officer but merely struggles to get free, his or her behavior does not constitute resisting arrest.
View Now
The mere possession of stolen property is insufficient to permit an inference of guilty knowledge. There must be additional evidence, circumstantial or direct, which would indicate that the defendant knew or had reason to know that the property was stolen. When the defendant cooperates with police, offers a consistent explanation at the scene and at trial for possession of the property, and there are no physical signs indicating the property was stolen, the evidence does not support the inference of guilty knowledge.
View Now
In a case of theft by receiving stolen property, if the property received, retained or disposed of is a firearm and the receiver is in the business of buying or selling stolen property then the offense is graded as a second degree felony. If the receiver is not in the business of buying or selling stolen property then it is graded according to the value of the firearm.
View Now
Simply being a passenger in a stolen vehicle is not enough to find that the passenger "received" the vehicle, i.e. exercised conscious control or dominion over the vehicle. Furthermore, the fact that the driver decided to flee in the vehicle does not give rise to an inference of guilt on the part of the passenger unless there is some evidence to indicate that the passenger concurred in the judgment to flee.
View Now
Consensual sex between two minors under the age of thirteen is not rape or involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. All applicable rape statutes predicated on age were created to prevent sexual acts between an adult and a minor. Furthermore, the legislature found that anyone under the age of thirteen was incapable of consenting to a sexual act and therefore "equally incapable, in any sense, implicating criminal liability, of initiating such conduct."
View Now
A prompt complaint is not required to sustain a rape conviction. However, a prompt complaint is competent evidence and may be admitted during the prosecution's case-in-chief to corroborate the allegation of rape.
View Now
A challenge to a verdict as against the weight of the evidence must be presented either prior to the disposition hearing or in a post-verdict motion. If it is not, this claim will be waived and will not be cognizable on appeal.
View Now