# Commonwealth v. Magliocco

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 28, 2005 · 584 Pa. 244

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746449

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. Eric J. MAGLIOCCO, Appellant/Cross-Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 28, 2005
- **Citations:** 584 Pa. 244; 883 A.2d 479; 2005 Pa. LEXIS 2129
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cappy
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Lamb, Former
- **Cited by:** 91 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Limited by Commonwealth v. Baker-Myers, 210 A.3d 1093 (2019).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746449

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that where Commonwealth charged Maglioccio with ethnic intimidation by committing the offense of terroristic threats, and a jury acquitted Magliocco of terroristic threats, the verdict of guilty for ethnic intimidation was reversible as it was inconsistent where terror…
- holding that where the jury found that the defendant did not commit the offense of terroristic threats, which was a predicate offense for the crime of ethnic intimidation, the conviction for ethnic intimidation could not stand
- holding that a conviction of ethnic intimidation must be vacated where the defendant was acquitted of the predicate crime of terroristic threats, which was a specific statutory element of the offense of which he was convicted
- concluding that a PIC conviction was appropriate where the defendant swung a baseball bat at two young girls even without a showing that a baseball bat is commonly used for criminal purposes
- explaining general rule that mere facial inconsistency in verdicts is not valid basis upon which to upset conviction which is otherwise proper, since consistency in verdicts is not required under Pennsylvania law

## Opinion text

CONCURRING OPINION
Chief Justice CAPPY.
I join the majority opinion. I write separately to distinguish this case from one in which a citizen in fact relies upon *268 an erroneously printed criminal statutory enactment. Such a case, in my view, may implicate different legal concerns than those present in this appeal. See, e.g., John T. Parry, Culpability, Mistake, and Official Interpretations of Law, 25 Am. J.Crim. L. 1 (Fall 1997); Joseph E. Murphy, The Duty of the Government to Make the Law Known, 51 Fordham L.Rev. 255 (1982); Comment: People v. Marrero and Mistake of Law, 54 Brooklyn L.Rev. 229 (Spring 1988).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746449. Public record. Not legal advice.