Commonwealth v. Hartzell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that discharging a weapon multiple times in the vicinity of others constitutes a sufficient danger to satisfy the statute
• finding that a statement in a prior opinion, which clearly was not decisional but merely dicta, is not binding precedent
• reviewing claim concerning whether reckless endangerment charges were de minimis under Section 312 without reference to whether claim presented to trial court
• stating that the totality of the circumstances permits the inference that the obscenities were shouted with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm and this conclusion can be reached by considering the fact that the appellant acted this way -7- J-S60013-16 frequently
• finding two appellate issues waived where the appellant “provided only one short paragraph in support of each […], neither of which contains any citation to authority”
• determining evidence was sufficient to support appellant's conviction for REAP where appellant consciously disregarded known risk when he pointed rifle in general direction of two men standing and purposefully shot into shallow water twenty-five to thirty feet away from them

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).