Commonwealth v. Yaple

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting claim that evidence was insufficient to sustain VUFA conviction because Commonwealth could not prove operability in absence of weapon
• victim’s testimony sufficient to prove that appellant possessed firearm; Commonwealth not required to introduce gun itself to prove possession
• a factfinder may infer an object that looks like a real firearm is in fact an operable firearm

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• United States ex rel. Hickey v. Jeffes
  Third Circuit· 1978-02-13· cited 53×
• Commonwealth v. Jennings
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-03-20· cited 50×
• Commonwealth v. Bond
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-03-30· cited 6×
• United States v. Jeffes
  Third Circuit· 1978-02-13· cited 1×
• Com. v. Mead, J., Jr.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2024-11-01· cited 1×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. McNeil
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1975-05-13· cited 105×
• Commonwealth v. Layton
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1973-07-02· cited 63×
• Commonwealth v. Williams
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1975-10-28· cited 20×