Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Grayson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 21, 1988No. 1109PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KELLY, Judge:

In this case, we are called upon to decide what degree of physical contact is necessary to constitute “indecent contact” within the meaning of that term in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3126 which defines the offense of indecent assault. Specifically, we must determine whether the brushing of appellant’s penis against the underside of the victim’s jaw constitutes touching as contemplated by the statute. Upon review of the record and the applicable authority, we conclude that the physical contact which occurred in this case constituted indecent contact within the meaning of the statute.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Commonwealth, Department of Environmental Resources v. Butler County Mushroom FarmSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. Commonwealth v. PearsallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Commonwealth v. WestcottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Commonwealth v. CapersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. HendersonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Commonwealth v. GerulisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Commonwealth v. HogansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. Commonwealth v. O'NeillSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. Commonwealth v. HawkinsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API