Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Mumma

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 30, 1980No. 183PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice.

This case presents a question of whether the Commonwealth introduced sufficient evidence at appellant’s trial to satisfy the requirements of Pennsylvania’s indecent assault statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126. Appellant, eighteen year old Harold Mumma, claims he did not know his contact with the victim, Mark Belesfield, was offensive and did not know the victim was unaware that an indecent contact occurred. We conclude that sufficient evidence appears of record to sustain the conviction. Accordingly, we affirm.1

On September 22, 1974, appellant went to the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. KichlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. Commonwealth v. RoweSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Commonwealth v. ChermanskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  4. Commonwealth v. LeeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  5. Commonwealth v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

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

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Com.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. Commonwealth v. StanleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. Commonwealth v. BachertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Commonwealth v. SlocumSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  5. Commonwealth v. SojournerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

39 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