Commonwealth v. Popow

How courts have described this case

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

• holding restitution for medical bills was improper under § 1106(a) due to lack of direct causation where appellant was acquitted of cutting victim and only convicted of threatening him
• stating that “‘[c]ourse of conduct’ is not an element of the offense of [EWOC], but it is an additional fact, a jury question, that impacts the grading of the offense”
• stating that “‘[c]ourse of conduct’ is not an element of the offense of [EWOC], but it is an additional fact, a jury question, that impacts the grading of the offense.”
• holding that “course of conduct” is “a jury question, that impacts the grading of the offense. We cannot merely assume the jury found this additional fact when no evidence of it was presented at trial and no mention of it was made in the jury’s charge.”
• holding that “course of conduct” is “a jury question, that impacts the grading of the offense. We cannot merely assume the jury found this additional fact when no evidence of it was presented at trial and no mention of it was made in the jury’s charge.”
• stating that for EWOC “to be graded as a third-degree felony, the Commonwealth must allege in the information and present evidence at trial of an additional factor of ‘course of conduct’ ….”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).