In the Interest of Becker

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that amendment at close of commonwealth’s case alleging new charge violated due process; no discussion of effect of possible continuance
• explaining that REAP contains “the following four elements: “(1) a mens rea—recklessness, (2) an actus reus—some ‘conduct’, (3) causation—‘which places', and (4) the achievement of a particular result—‘danger’, to another person of death or serious bodily injury.”
• finding prejudice because amendment changed identity of allegedly endangered person and physical acts which placed other persons in danger, which also caused defense theory to change
• reversing juvenile’s adjudication after Commonwealth was permitted to amend its petition to change the identification of the victim at the adjudication hearing, noting that Pa. R.Crim. 229 (now Rule 564
• reversing juvenile’s adjudication after Commonwealth was permitted to amend its petition to change the identification of the victim at the adjudication hearing, noting that Pa. R.Crim. 229 (now Rule 564) would preclude the same action in a criminal action involving an adult defendant
• analysis of amendment to juvenile petition same as that under Pa.R.Crim.P. 229 relating to criminal cases

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).