green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
22.1 score
“whether or not the killing in this case was 'committed in furtherance of the conspiracy' was a question ... for the jury.”
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 44 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Commonwealth v. Eckert
(See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Toth, 455 Pa. 154 , 314 A.2d 275 (1974); Commonwealth v. Revty, 448 Pa. 512 , 295 A.2d 300 (1972); but see, Commonwealth v. McNeal [ 456 Pa. 394 , 319 A.2d 669 ], supra).” Here, the prosecutor did not make a derogatory comment about appellant or give his personal opinion of appellant’s guilt or innocence.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Commonwealth v. Bell
whether or not the killing in this case was 'committed in furtherance of the conspiracy' was a question ... for the jury.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Mann, S.
The accepted goal of the prosecutor's closing summation is to " ... present the facts in a manner that will lead the jury to a dispassionate and objective evaluation of those facts and will produce a judgment warranted by the evidence." Commonwealth v. Turner, 390 Pa.Super. 216, 222 , 568 A.2d 622, 625 (1989) citing Commonwealth v. Davis, 363 Pa.Super. 562, 583 , 526 A.2d 1205, 1216 (1987), allocatur denied, 518 Pa. 624 , 541 A.2d 1135 (1988). 56 A Commonwealth's attorney will not be found to have advocated impermissibly and hence committed "reversible error" during her closing " ... unless th…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Patterson, J.
Further, comments by a prosecutor "do not constitute reversible error unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict." Commonwealth v. Von Cliff, 397 A.2d 1173, 1176 (Pa. 1979), quoting Commonwealth v. McNeal, 319 A.2d 669, 673 (Pa. 1974) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Dale, L.
A Commonwealth's attorney will not be found to have advocated impermissibly and hence committed "reversible error" during his closing " ... unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict." Commonwealth v. Nicholson, 308 Pa.Super. 370, 384 , 454 A.2d 581, 588 (1982) quoting Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Gwynn
(2×)
The well-settled standard for analyzing a prosecutor's closing comment directs that we consider whether the unavoidable effect of the statement would be to prejudice the jury, "forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict." Williams, 896 A.2d at 542 ; Commonwealth v. Ford, 539 Pa. 85 , 650 A.2d 433, 442 (1994); Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Choi Chun Lam
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Strong, 522 Pa. 445, 454 , 563 A.2d 479, 483 (1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1060 , 110 S.Ct. 1536 , 108 L.Ed.2d 775 (1990), (citing Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Sattazahn
(2×)
"Generally, `comments by the district attorney do not constitute reversible error unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the [jurors], forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.'" Commonwealth v. Strong, 522 Pa. 445, 454 , 563 A.2d 479, 483 (1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1060 , 110 S.Ct. 1536 , 108 L.Ed.2d 775 (1990), ( quoting Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Battiato
Reversible error occurs only when the conduct of the prosecutor is such that its unavoidable effect is “ ‘to prejudice the [jurors], forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.’ ” Commonwealth v. Strong, 522 Pa. 445, 454, 563 A.2d 479, 483 (1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. *295 1060, 110 S.Ct. 1536 , 108 L.Ed.2d 775 (1990), quoting Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Green
(2×)
"Generally, `comments by the district attorney do not constitute reversible error unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.'" *128 Commonwealth v. Strong, 522 Pa. 445, 454 , 563 A.2d 479, 483 (1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1060 , 110 S.Ct. 1536 , 108 L.Ed.2d 775 (1990), quoting Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Scarfo
(2×)
A new trial is required when the effect of the District Attorney's comments "would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict." Commonwealth v. Van Cliff, 483 Pa. 576, 582 , 397 A.2d 1173 , *408 1776 (1979), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 964 , 99 S.Ct. 2412 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1979), quoting Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Faulkner
A new trial is required when the effect of the District Attorney's comments “would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. Van Cliff, 483 Pa. 576, 582 , 397 A.2d 1173, 1176 (1979), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 964 , 99 S.Ct. 2412 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1979), quoting Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Jubilee
(2×)
"Generally, `comments by the district attorney do not constitute reversible error unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.'" Commonwealth v. Strong, 522 Pa. 445, 454 , 563 A.2d 479, 483 (1989), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 1536 , 108 L.Ed.2d 775 (1990), quoting Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Strong
(2×)
Generally, “comments by the district attorney do not constitute reversible error unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Zigler
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Our Supreme Court has “consistently ruled that comments by the district attorney do not constitute reversible error unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Brinkley
(2×)
As we stated in Commonwealth v. Van Cliff, 483 Pa. 576, 582-83 , 397 A.2d 1173, 1176 (1979): “[Cjomments by the district attorney do not constitute reversible error unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974) (citations omitted). “[Wjhether this standard has been violated by the language of the district attorney is not in the first instan…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Lacy
Although a prosecutor’s trial conduct must be neither vindictive nor in any manner influence the jury by arousing their prejudicies, Commonwealth v. Starks, 479 Pa. 51, 56 , 387 A.2d 829, 831 (1978), “[cjomments by the district attorney do not constitute reversible error unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. Van Cliff, 483 Pa. 576, 582, 586 , 397 A.2d 1173, 1176, 1178 (1979), quoting…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Sanford
“Comments by the district attorney do not constitute reversible error unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. Van Cliff, 483 Pa. 576, 582 , 397 A.2d 1173, 1176 (1979), quoting Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Middleton
The question of whether this act was in “furtherance of the conspiracy was a question of proof for the jury to resolve.” Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 396-97 , 319 A.2d 669, 671 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Carey
“Comments by the district attorney do not constitute reversible error unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. Nicholson, 308 Pa.Super. 370, 384 , 454 A.2d 581, 588 (1982), quoting from Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Ortiz
In Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394 at 401 , 319 A.2d 669 at 674 (1974) we said: “[I]n evaluating the correctness of instructions to a jury, the charge must be read and considered in its entirety.” Certainly, there is no need, nor is it desirable, to fully reinstruct a jury each time a specific inquiry is made.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Nicholson
(2×)
"Comments by the district attorney do not constitute reversible error unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict." Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974); Commonwealth v. Boone, 287 Pa.Super. 1, 6 , 428 A.2d 1382, 1389 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Parente
A new trial is necessary only when, “[t]he unavoida *453 ble effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Boone
Our Supreme Court has stated that “comments by the district attorney do not constitute reversible error unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Byrd
“Comments by the district attorney do not constitute reversible error unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. Van Cliff, 483 Pa. 576, 582 , 397 A.2d 1173, 1176 , cert. denied, 441 U.S. 964 , 99 S.Ct. 2412 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1979), quoting Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Nesbitt
After the trial judge overruled the objection, the prosecutor continued: “He cannot comment on the credibility of his witnesses who he believes and if he believes his man is innocent.” The trial judge again overruled defense counsel’s objection. 3 Our Supreme Court has stated: “[Cjomments by the district attorney do not constitute reversible error unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.” Commonweal…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Watson
In Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394 at 401 , 319 A.2d 669 at 674 (1974) we said: “[I]n evaluating the correctness of instructions to a jury, the charge must be read and considered in its entirety.” Certainly, there is no need, nor is it desirable, to fully reinstruct a jury each time a specific inquiry is made.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Ferguson
Reversible error attaches only where: “. . . the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not *187 weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Guess
Appellant now contends that the district attorney’s question broaching appellant’s possible sexual activity with Mrs. Feld had “the unavoidable effect of . forming [in the jurors’ minds] fixed bias and hostility . so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Cliff
II “[CJomments by the district attorney do not constitute reversible error unless the unavoidable effect of such comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669, 673 (1974) (citations omitted). “[WJhether this standard has been violated by the language of the district attorney is not in the first instance our decision to make.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. McNeal
Since this issue was fully considered by this Court in petitioner’s direct appeal, Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 396-97 , 319 A.2d 669, 671-72 (1974), it is finally litigated and not open to collateral attack. 19 P.S. §§ 1180-3(d), 1180-4(a)(3) (Supp. 1977-78).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Noga
It is a firm rule that if the ground upon which an objection to the admission of evidence is specifically stated, all other reasons for the exclusion of the evidence are waived and may not be raised thereafter: Com. v. Williams, 476 Pa. 557 , 383 A. 2d 503, 509 (1978); Com. v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 398 , 319 A. 2d 669, 672 (1974); Com. v. Budd, 443 Pa. 193, 195 , 278 A. 2d 879, 880 (1971); Com. v. Raymond, 412 Pa. 194, 202-203 , 194 A. 2d 221 (1963).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Williams
Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus, supra; Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 398 , 319 A.2d 669, 672 (1974); *570 Commonwealth v. Budd, 443 Pa. 193, 195 , 278 A.2d 879, 880 (1971); Commonwealth v. Raymond, 412 Pa. 194, 202-203 , 194 A.2d 150, 154 (1963).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com v. Gonzalez, M.
See Commonwealth v. McNeal, 319 A.2d 669, 673 (Pa. 1974) (cross-examination question posed to defendant whose in-court testimony contradicted what he told police officers regarding whether he was "lying" to them does not create prejudice, bias, or hostility in the jury). 9 Circulated 11/07/2014 12:09 PM This case presents a factual scenario where Appellant, through his direct examination, opened the door to questions about his credibility on cross-examination and comments on his credibility during the Commonwealth's closing argument.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Phillips
See Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394 , 319 A.2d 669 (1974) (it was not reversible error for the prosecutor to employ the terms “lie” or “lying” when referring to inconsistencies and contradictions between the accused’s testimony and prior statements made to the police).
cited
Cited "see"
Phares v. State
See Commonwealth v. McNeal (1974), 456 Pa. 394, 396-97 , 319 A.2d 669, 671-72 (Defendant convicted of rape, conspiracy to commit rape, and first degree murder.
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. West
See Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669 (1974). .
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Johnson
See Com. v. Baker, 466 Pa. 382 , 353 A.2d 406 (1976) and Com. v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394 , 319 A.2d 669 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Nutter
See Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669 (1974). “. . .a prosecutor must be free to present his arguments with logical force and vigor.” American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function, § 5.-8(b) (Approved Draft, 1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Brenizer
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669 (1974).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Cronin
See Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394, 400 , 319 A.2d 669 (1974).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Dunlap
See Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394 , 319 A. 2d 669 (1974).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Harvell
See Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394 , 319 A.2d 669 (1974); Commonwealth v. Jones, 457 Pa. 423 , 322 A.2d 119 (1974).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Starks
See also Commonwealth v. McNeal, 456 Pa. 394 , 319 A.2d 669 (1974); ABA Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function.
Commonwealth
v.
Coplin
v.
Coplin
No. 1299.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 22, 1974.
Drew Salomon, Assistant Defender, with him John W. Paclcel, Assistant Defender, and Vincent J. Ziccardi, Defender, for appellant., David Richman, Assistant District Attorney, with him James T. Romney and Milton M. Stein, Assistant District Attorneys, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Brien, Eagen, Jones, Manderino, Nix, Pee, Pomeroy, Roberts.
Published
Opinion
Pee Curiam,The petition for allocatur is granted. We agree with the reasoning of the Opinion in Support of Reversal in the Superior Court that the evidence is insufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction of larceny. Commonwealth v. Coplin, 226 Pa. Superior Ct. 146, 147, 313 A.2d 349, 349 (1973) (Spaeth, J., Opinion in Support of Reversal, joined by Jacobs and Hoffman, JJ.).
The judgment of sentence is reversed and appellant discharged.