# Commonwealth v. Lobiondo

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 8, 1983 · 501 Pa. 599

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761290

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Leonard F. LOBIONDO, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 8, 1983
- **Citations:** 501 Pa. 599; 462 A.2d 662; 1983 Pa. LEXIS 633
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Larsen, McDermott, Nix, Roberts
- **Cited by:** 77 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/9761290

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that a trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion “is intended as an aid to the reviewing appellate court and cannot alter a previously entered verdict”
- stating that sections of the Crimes Code are necessarily interrelated, and should be read and construed as an entirety

## Opinion text

ROBERTS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
Appellant’s claim, that the trial judge found appellant guilty of simple assault on the basis of a standard of negligence less than the gross negligence standard necessary to sustain a charge of simple assault, rests on a reading of only an isolated portion of the trial judge’s opinion in support of the verdict. After stating that appellant was obliged to handle the gun used in the shooting “with utmost care,” the trial judge found that
“[appellant] knew the gun was loaded when he reached for it and pointed it at the complainant. In addition, the defendant knew that he was handling a weapon that did not have a safety mechanism. Also, the defendant was not familiar with this particular firearm because he had owned it for just a few weeks and had never used it before the night he shot James Sutherland.”
These facts clearly constitute “a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 302(b)(4).
Because the record is clear that the trial judge found facts sufficient to establish appellant’s gross negligence, it is unnecessary for the majority to discuss whether the verdict could be sustained if less than gross negligence were found.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761290. Public record. Not legal advice.