989 A.2d 340
Decided February 16, 2010
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2010-02-16
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 2012
3 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“Did the courts below err by concluding that a defendant who provides an address and subsequently becomes homeless has no duty to comply with the registration requirements of Megan's Law, such that evidence consistent with these circumstances would be insufficient to support a verdict of guilty of failure to register?”
quoted by 2 later decisions, including Commonwealth v. Wilgus, 2011 Pa. Super. 25 - Commonwealth v. Moreno
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2010-02-16
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1 ORDER
¶2 AND NOW, this 16th day of February, 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:
Did the courts below err by concluding that a defendant who provides an address and subsequently becomes homeless has no duty to comply with the registration requirements of Megan’s Law, such that evidence consistent with these circumstances would be insufficient to support a verdict of guilty of failure to register?