Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Jesse D. Pellow v. Pennsylvania

IFP petition · Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office, No. 1040 WDA 2024 · judgment August 21, 2025

Pending

Question presented

Whether, consistent with the Due Process Clause, a criminal conviction for harassment may be sustained where the trial court, acting as factfinder, relied upon its authority to determine credibility and weigh the evidence, but the Commonwealth was nevertheless required to present evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the essential statutory element of intent to harass, annoy, or alarm. Factfinder authority does not displace the constitutional standard governing the degree of proof necessary to establish an essential element of a criminal offense. Even accepting the trial court's authority to determine credibility and weigh the evidence, Due Process independently required constitutionally sufficient evidence from which a rational factfinder could find the essential element of intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

For petitioner
Jesse D. Pellow

For respondent
—

Subject area
Criminal Procedure (estimated from the questions presented, in the Supreme Court Database’s categories)

Conference history
—

Mar 02 2026
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 14, 2026)
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Petition Appendix Proof of Service