You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Commonwealth v. Baker-Myers, J.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 193 WAL 2019 (Granted)

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; November 25, 2019; Pennsylvania; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Petitioner Commonwealth of Pennsylvania seeks allowance for appeal from the Superior Court's decision in the case against James Duane Baker-Myers. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted the petition on November 26, 2019. The key issues for consideration include: 1. The validity of the Superior Court's reliance on Commonwealth v. Magliocco, 883 A.2d 479 (Pa. 2005), in determining that the phrase “in violation of Chapter 31” constitutes an essential element for a conviction of Corruption of Minors as a felony of the third degree. 2. Whether the evidence presented was adequate to support a conviction for Corruption of Minors as a felony of the third degree, despite the jury's decisions to acquit the defendant of multiple sexual assault charges, including Rape, Sexual Assault, Aggravated Indecent Assault, and Indecent Assault.

Legal Issues Addressed

Essential Elements for Felony Conviction

Application: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is reviewing whether the Superior Court correctly identified the phrase 'in violation of Chapter 31' as an essential element for convicting someone of Corruption of Minors as a felony of the third degree.

Reasoning: The validity of the Superior Court's reliance on Commonwealth v. Magliocco, 883 A.2d 479 (Pa. 2005), in determining that the phrase 'in violation of Chapter 31' constitutes an essential element for a conviction of Corruption of Minors as a felony of the third degree.

Sufficiency of Evidence in Criminal Convictions

Application: The case questions whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of Corruption of Minors as a felony of the third degree, despite acquittals on related sexual assault charges.

Reasoning: Whether the evidence presented was adequate to support a conviction for Corruption of Minors as a felony of the third degree, despite the jury's decisions to acquit the defendant of multiple sexual assault charges, including Rape, Sexual Assault, Aggravated Indecent Assault, and Indecent Assault.