Court Opinion

ID: 9750485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:01:10.362504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:10.962440
License: Public Domain

DEL SOLE, Judge,
dissenting:
I must dissent from the majority’s rewriting of 18 Pa.C. S.A. § 2702(a)(5). While I agree with the majority that *425what the General Assembly intended was to prevent persons from entering on school premises, engaging in altercations and disrupting the educational process, I cannot subscribe to the majority’s interpretation of the subject statute.
The majority’s interpretation of the statute would mean that anyone who assaults an employee of a school district or a student of the school district, at any time, would be subject to a charge of aggravated assault. Rather, it is my belief that the General Assembly sought to limit the upgrading the assault to the aggravated range only when the assault occurred to someone who was in a specific relationship with the school.
The majority’s interpretation would mean that students who engage in an altercation on a weekend that may have been precipitated by a school sponsored sporting event the previous week would be subjected to aggravated assault charges under this Section.
I do not find Appellant’s view of the statute strained. Rather, I find the majority’s attempt to justify their statutory construction as strained.
Since the statute is not clearly drawn I think the best thing that this court can do is suggest that the General Assembly redraft it in order that it might serve the laudable purpose which its sponsors intended.