Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 4/3/2013

Commonwealth v. Thomas

Citations

  • 65 A.3d 939
  • 2013 Pa. Super. 71
  • 2013 WL 1319796
  • 2013 Pa. Super. LEXIS 159

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that “the rationale for allowing inconsistent verdicts is that it is the jury’s sole prerogative to decide on which counts to convict in order to provide a defendant with sufficient punishment”
  • explaining that a defendant’s acquittal for “the underlying crime is irrelevant to his guilt on the conspiracy charge” and reiterating that “an acquittal cannot be interpreted as a specific finding in relation to some of the evidence”
  • deeming the evidence of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault sufficient where the defendant “was with a group of four other individuals who repeatedly kicked and punched the victim, causing her to collapse to the ground, where they continued their attack”
  • intent element of a crime ordinarily must be proven through circumstantial evidence and inferred from the parties’ acts, conduct or attendant circumstances
  • “[T]he rationale for allowing inconsistent verdicts is that it is the jury’s sole prerogative to decide on which counts to convict in order to provide a defendant with sufficient punishment.” (cleaned up)
  • “We held that acting together before, during, and after an attack on another individual suffices to show a unity of criminal purpose for purposes of sustaining a conviction for criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated assault.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Shogan, Strassburger, Wecht

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.