Commonwealth v. Thomas

How courts have described this case

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

• evidence of missing spring irrelevant because recovered weapon was designed to shoot bullets and need not be operable to establish elements of 6105 charge
• failure of a firearm to expel a bullet does not preclude a conviction under section 6105
• “The statutory language is clear, and it does not -5- J-A23001-17 require proof that the weapon was capable of expelling a projectile when it was seized[.]”; “[T]he use of the terms ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ in section 6105(i

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Smith
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2016-08-25· cited 104×
• Commonwealth v. Miklos
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2017-04-17· cited 48×
• Commonwealth v. Batty
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2017-08-16· cited 24×
• Com. v. Peralta, J.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2024-02-08· cited 14×
• Com. v. Smith, D., Jr.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2022-12-29· cited 12×
• Com. v. Lineman, A.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2019-09-16· cited 6×
• Com. v. Martin, M. Jr.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2024-09-05· cited 1×
• Com. v. Marotta, M.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2016-11-08
• Com. v. Martin, M. Jr.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2023-06-12
• Com. v. Mumford, C.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2026-02-19
• Com. v. Lassends, H.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2026-03-02