Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Aikens, M., Aplt.

Citations

  • 168 A.3d 137
  • 2017 WL 3596176
  • 2017 Pa. LEXIS 1946

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding there to be no inconsistent verdict where, in that case, “the jury’s verdicts merely indicate[d] that [the a]ppellant did not actually commit IDSI with respect to the minor victim, but did unlawfully contact the minor victim for purposes of engaging in IDSI”
  • UCM “does not require a conviction on the underlying offense for which a defendant contacts the minor victim”
  • \ in convicting [the defendant] of the offense of unlawful contact with aminor the jury necessarily found as fact that [he] contacted the minor victim in this case for the specific purpose of engaging in IDSI \
  • “the concern in Reed was that given the defendant’s acquittals on multiple Chapter 31 attempt offenses of varying grades there was no way for the sentencing court to determine which offense he sought to commit when he contacted his minor victim”
  • reiterating the long-held presumption that jurors follow trial court instructions
  • reiterating the long-held presumption that jurors follow trial court instructions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Saylor, Baer, Todd, Donohue, Dougherty, Wecht, Mundy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.