# Commonwealth v. Frisbie

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 18, 1984 · 506 Pa. 461

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635460

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Charles FRISBIE, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 18, 1984
- **Citations:** 506 Pa. 461; 485 A.2d 1098; 1984 Pa. LEXIS 383
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Zappala
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 75 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635460

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “[h]ad the legislature intended to preclude multiple punishments under [the REAP statute], that section would read: “a person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another person or persons in d…
- concluding that reckless endangerment statute, which prohibited conduct jeopardizing “ ‘another person,’ ” “was written with regard to an individual person being placed in danger of death or serious bodily injury, and that a separate offense is committed for each individual pe…
- concluding that reckless endangerment statute, which prohibited conduct jeopardizing "`another person,'" "was written with regard to an individual person being placed in danger of death or serious bodily injury, and that a separate offense is committed for each individual pers…

## Opinion text

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the Opinion of the Court. I would emphasize, however, that the number of counts under Section 2705 which might arise out of a single act is tied, as a matter of logic, to the number of persons placed in danger of death or serious bodily injury, not to the number of persons actually killed or seriously injured. As a matter of practical application, however, given the difficulties to be encountered in trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person was in danger of injury although he was not in fact injured, it is to be anticipated that the Commonwealth, as here, will exercise its discretion so as to prosecute only those counts as to which the danger of death or serious injury is supported by evidence of actual death or injury.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635460. Public record. Not legal advice.