Municipal police have full police power without a warrant, and may arrest or apprehend any child who fails to attend school in compliance with the provisions of 24 P.S. § 13-1341(a), (c). Police have requisite reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot when they observe someone who appears to be of school age on a public street during a time when school is in session. The apparent age of the juvenile can be sufficient to stop and detain the defendant for a brief period while the police investigate their suspicion of truancy. Disclosure by a juvenile that he or she is supposed to be in school but is not, in conjunction with apparent age, and the fact that the observation is made during the hours of normal school operation are sufficient to warrant an arrest. Police officers may reasonably rely upon representations made to them and have no affirmative duty to perform on-the-scene investigation. Even if a juvenile is 17 and not of compulsory school age, the fact that he or she represents to the officer that he or she is supposed to be in school will not invalidate the arrest even though the defendant is not technically truant.

If a gun is incapable of firing and the alleged actor does not have under his or her control the means to convert the object into one capable of firing a shot, then it is not a "firearm" for purposes of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act.

The Confrontation Clause does not erect a per se rule barring the admission of prior statements of a declarant who is unable to communicate to the jury at the time of trial. Although such inability might be relevant to whether the earlier hearsay statement possessed particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, a per se rule of exclusion would not only frustrate the truth seeking purpose of the Confrontation Clause, but would also hinder states in their own enlightened development in the law of evidence.

The Tender Years exception, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5985.1, which provides that the hearsay statements of a child sexual abuse victim or witness who is twelve years of age or younger are admissible if the victim is unavailable, must possess particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. The time, content, and circumstances of the statement must provide sufficient indicia of reliability. Reliability can be established using factors that include, but are not limited to: the spontaneity and consistent repetition of the statement(s); the mental state of the declarant; the use of terminology unexpected of a child declarant of similar age; and, the lack of motive to fabricate.

A spur-of-the-moment threat resulting from transitory anger, even if not dignified or noble, is insufficient for terroristic threats. Terroristic threats are proved by: (1) a threat to commit a crime of violence and (2) proof that the threat was communicated with intent to terrorize. The offense does not require that the accused intend to carry out the threat; it does require settled intent to terrorize. The harm sought to be prevented is the psychological distress which follows from an invasion of another's sense of personal security. Hence, a threat from a defendant that she would get a gun and use it as a response to the complaining witness threatening to hit her children with a car is not a terroristic threat. The threat should not be viewed in a vacuum, but instead in the context of the entire situation. It must be determined whether the threat was a result of a heated verbal exchange or confrontation.

The Commonwealth must rebut a claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth fails to do this if its only evidence is that of a police officer who testifies to the complaining witness's statement via an excited utterance exception to hearsay. The fact that a trial court does not believe the defendant's testimony in support of his or her self-defense claim does not excuse the Commonwealth from providing proof to disprove the claim.

"Within the confines of the family, it is difficult to attach criminality to the pushing, shoving, slapping, elbowing, hair-pulling, perhaps even punching and kicking that not infrequently occur between siblings or other members of the same family. Altercations between juvenile members of the same family, even when they become less than civil, are usually too trivial to be a target of the Crimes Code. In the absence of a criminal or malicious intent, such intrafamily spats will not support criminal prosecution." A 16-year-old who uses her elbow to push her 2 year old nephew away from her cannot be prosecuted criminally n the absence of a criminal or malicious intent. So long as there is no malicious intent to abuse or injure the child, acts of corporal punishment are justifiable and not actionable criminally.

The assault section in the Crimes Code was intended to protect and preserve one's physical well being and was not intended to prevent temporary hurts resulting from trivial contacts which are a customary part of modern day living, which is why the Pennsylvania legislature created the summary offense of harassment. Temporary aches and pains (bruising and slight cuts on the arms) brought about by strenuous, even violent, dancing are an inadequate basis for imposing criminal liability upon a dance partner for assault.

It is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to impose the mandatory fines on a juvenile in a DUI case without making an inquiry of the juvenile's ability to pay.

The removal of a steak from a supermarket in the presence of a security guard is theft, not a third-degree-felony robbery. The language of the robbery statute requires "taking from the person of another" as a necessary element of the crime; therefore retail theft cannot become a robbery under that subsection where a guard simply observes the taking from a display.