Commonwealth v. Larsen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that once the appellant put in motion a scheme to deceive the pharmacists who dispensed drugs, the subsequent possession of the drug was a violation of Subsection 12 of Section 780-113 of the Drug Act
• holding the district attorney is vested with the sole discretion as to what crime(s) will be charged, and that discretion will not be disturbed absent a gross abuse of discretion
• indicating costs are “penal sanctions” arising from a criminal conviction and, therefore, the imposition of costs are part of the judgment of sentence
• indicating costs are “penal sanctions” arising from a criminal conviction and, therefore, the imposition of costs are part of the judgment of sentence
• upholding nearly $40,000 in costs associated with convening grand jury investigation
• declining to apportion costs of prosecution 7 It is well-settled that where the result is correct, we may affirm a lower court’s decision on any proper ground. See Commonwealth v. Lehman, 275 A.3d 513, 520 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2022

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).