Commonwealth v. Fedorek

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Fedorek

933 A.2d 648

DecidedSeptember 26, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 933 A.2d 648 (Commonwealth v. Fedorek) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Fedorek, 933 A.2d 648 (Pa. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2007, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Whether a divided en banc panel of the Superior Court erred in interpreting the statutory definition of disorderly conduct, graded as a misdemeanor of the third degree; 18 Pa.C.S. § 5505(b), as requiring the Commonwealth to prove that the harm or inconvenience resulting from the conduct of the accused be a “substantial public harm” or a “substantial public inconvenience” despite the absence of this requirement in the plain language of the statute?

(2) Whether a divided en banc panel of the Superior Court erred in reversing a judgment of sentence imposed on a disorderly conduct conviction by a jury where the Commonwealth introduced evidence at trial demonstrating that the defendant-Fe-dorek intended to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience to the victim-Dennis Scott Martin?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2007, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Whether a divided en banc panel of the Superior Court erred in interpreting the statutory definition of disorderly conduct, graded as a misdemeanor of the third degree; 18 Pa.C.S. § 5505(b), as requiring the Commonwealth to prove that the harm or inconvenience resulting from the conduct of the accused be a “substantial public harm” or a “substantial public inconvenience” despite the absence of this requirement in the plain language of the statute?

(2) Whether a divided en banc panel of the Superior Court erred in reversing a judgment of sentence imposed on a disorderly conduct conviction by a jury where the Commonwealth introduced evidence at trial demonstrating that the defendant-Fe-dorek intended to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience to the victim-Dennis Scott Martin?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

933 A.2d 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-fedorek-pa-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack