Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Balog

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 13, 1996No. 836PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Judge:

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether that portion of the animal cruelty statute, which pertains to animal fighting, is vague and overbroad in violation of the United States Constitution. For the reasons set forth below, we find that James Edward Balog has failed to carry his burdén of showing that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad. We also find that because Balog’s conduct fell within the scope of the statute, he cannot complain of vagueness. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

Following trial, á jury found Balog guilty of cruelty to animals…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. EdmundsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  2. Commonwealth v. HeinbaughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  3. Commonwealth v. HashemSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. Commonwealth v. LongSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  5. Commonwealth v. StenhachSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Edmondson v. PearceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2004
  2. Commonwealth v. MossSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. Commonwealth v. LarsenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  4. Commonwealth v. MillerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  5. In the Interest of C.C.J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

13 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