Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Anderson
Pennsylvania Superior Court
630 A.2d 47 (1993)

- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
In 1985, 16-year-old Anderson (defendant) got into a fight with another teenager on a playground and struck him on the head with a baseball bat. Anderson was arrested and charged with two counts of assault, possession of a weapon, and recklessly endangering another person. After Anderson failed to appear for a hearing in the family-court division, the judge issued a bench warrant for him to be detained. In 1988, Anderson committed retail theft at age 19, and the municipal court issued another bench warrant after he failed to appear for a hearing on the new charges. In 1991, when Anderson was 22 years old, he was again arrested on additional charges. The commonwealth then recharged Anderson as an adult for the crimes he committed at age 16. The family-court division lifted Anderson’s first bench warrant and transferred his case to the trial division because he was no longer a child under state law. After a hearing on Anderson’s motion to dismiss the charges for lack of jurisdiction, the trial division remanded the case to the family-court division. The trial division later reconsidered, but ultimately affirmed the dismissal of Anderson’s case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The commonwealth then appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kelly, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.