Commonwealth v. Henderson

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that because the “defense of abandonment has no mental element,” a mistake of fact regarding whether a building or structure has been abandoned is irrelevant to the defense of abandonment”
• explaining that an abandoned structure is one that has been “wholly forsaken or deserted” and cannot be proven merely because a building is uninhabited; evidence that the build or structure is being maintained is enough to render the defense of abandonment inapplicable
• defining “abandonment” in the related context of burglary as “wholly forsaken or deserted”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Holmes
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1983-06-10· cited 126×
• State v. Miner
  Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 1981-12-09· cited 1×

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Carter
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1978-11-06· cited 44×