green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
43.6 score
“an error may be deemed harmless when the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error is so insignificant by comparison that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Freeman, S.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
an error may be deemed harmless when the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error is so insignificant by comparison that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Leschinskie, J., Jr.
Our Supreme Court has previously held that where an appellant’s “specific [past] crime” was “never mentioned,” any prejudice suffered by passing reference to his criminal activity was “slight.” Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 820 (Pa. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Rivera, J., Aplt.
See Commonwealth v. Crews, 640 A.2d 395, 404-05 (Pa. 1994) (noting reference to post-arrest silence arose in extradition context—context “not familiar to most citizens” and “not one in which jurors would equate invocation of Fifth Amendment rights with an implicit admission of guilt”); Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 827 (Pa. 1994) (finding questions distinct from Turner because did not “specifically mention” whether defendant had spoken to police, word “dawn” hinted not “to speech at all, but rather, deals with [the defendant’s] cognitive process,” question was �…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lunsford, W.
Mere passing references to prior criminal activity will not require reversal unless the record illustrates definitively that prejudice resulted from the reference.” Id. at 819 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
JOHNSON v. RANSOM
(2×)
Reply to Resp. to Obj., ECF 21 at 6.) In support, he cites Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 824 (Pa. 1994); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 215 A.2d 36 , 51-52 (Pa. 2019); United States v. Rowe, 919 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 2019); and Commonwealth v. Washington, 573 A.2d 1123, 1125 (Pa. Super.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Kelley, J.
Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 821 (Pa. 1994) (citations, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Russell, C.
See Commonwealth v. LaCava, 666 A.2d 221, 235 (Pa. 1995) (failure to sufficiently explain claim waives consideration of claim since this Court will not make appellant’s arguments for him); Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 828 (Pa. 1994) (failure to elaborate on mere assertion renders claim waived).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Carroll, S.
(See Commonwealth’s Brief, at 10) (citing Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 818-19 (Pa. 1994) (holding signed statement of identifying - 11 - J-S56035-17 witness who later recanted was admissible both as prior inconsistent statement by recanting witness, and as evidence of witness’ state of mind)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Vo, K.
Id. at 826 (emphasis in original; citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Bishop, T.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 820 (Pa. 1994), lyrics to a rap song recorded by Ragan’s musical group were held to have been properly admitted, because the lyrics were introduced in response to testimony on direct examination in which the appellant had portrayed himself as a college student and artist.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Anderson, R.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 821 (Pa. 1994) (quoting Commonwealth v. Goosby, 301 A.2d 673, 674 (Pa. 1973) (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Harris, T.
Specifically, this Court observed: “The often-stated rule in Pennsylvania governing evidence of other crimes is that such evidence is not admissible solely to show a defendant’s bad character or propensity for continuing criminal acts.” Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 819 (Pa. 1994) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Stinson, I.
Our Supreme Court has noted that, “Threats by third persons against public officers or witnesses are not relevant unless it is shown that the defendant is linked in some way to the making of the threats.” Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 824 (Pa. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wright, K.
Id. at 219; Commonwealth Exhibit C 5.4 A witness’s prior inconsistent statement could be admitted as substantive evidence “when the statement had been given under oath at a formal legal proceeding, reduced to writing and signed by the declarant, or recorded verbatim contemporaneously with the making of the statement.” Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 818 (Pa. 1994). ____________________________________________ 4 All three eyewitnesses signed their respective police statements. - 17 - J-S63025-16 The trial court herein instructed the jury on this legal maxim, informing them: [Y]ou are…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lynch, J.
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 416 (Pa. 2003); Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 818 (Pa. 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Smoot, J.
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 40 .3, 416 (Pa. 2C)03); Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 818 (Pa. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Steel, S.
In appellants’ third issue on appeal, they aver that the trial court erred when it denied appellants’ request to redact a portion of Montalmont’s statement that was read in court, in which Montalmont stated that “if his cooperation ‘gets out, [he] will be killed.’” (Appellants’ brief at 37.) The trial court cited our supreme court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 818 (Pa. 1994), which stated that a witness’ state of mind when making a statement that is later recanted to the police is relevant.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hogan, K.
As to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, “the admissibility of evidence is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and that an appellate court may only reverse upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 818 (Pa. 1994) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Burno
Cf. Commonwealth v. Ragan [ 538 Pa. 2 ], 645 A.2d 811, 824 (Pa.1994) (mere argumentative and unwise comments that do not prejudice outcome do not warrant new trial especially where trial court immediately instructs jurors to disregard remarks).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Judy
Our courts have explained that “a prosecutor cannot intrude upon the exclusive function of the jury to evaluate the credibility of witnesses by broadly characterizing the testimony of a witness as a ‘big lie.’ ” Commonwealth v. Cox, 581 Pa. 107 , 863 A.2d 536, 547 (2004), citing Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2 , 645 A.2d 811, 829 (1994); Commonwealth v. Kuebler, 484 Pa. 358 , 399 A.2d 116, 118 (1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Dabney
A claim of prosecutorial misconduct will constitute grounds for relief, however, when the unavoidable effect of the contested comment was to “prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility towards the accused so as to hinder an objective weighing of the evidence and impede the rendering of a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2, 24 , 645 A.2d 811, 822 (1994), citing Commonwealth v. Chester, 526 Pa. 578, 599 , 587 A.2d 1367, 1377 (1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Carson
(2×)
As to the prosecutor’s closing remarks, the Commonwealth simply explains that there is nothing improper about asking a jury to fulfill its duty to reach a just verdict, Commonwealth’s Brief at 22 (citing Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2 , 645 A.2d 811, 829 (1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Champney
This claim fails. 13 “The admissibility of evidence is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and an appellate court may only reverse upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Bridges, 563 Pa. 1 , 757 A.2d 859, 874 (2000), citing Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2 , 645 A.2d 811, 818 (1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Hetzel
Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2 , 645 A.2d 811, 818 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Jones
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
(Michael) Pierce, supra; Pettus, supra. Accord Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2 , 645 A.2d 811, 828-29 (1994) (boilerplate allegation is no basis for relief in capital PCRA appeal).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Hawkins
See Commonwealth v. LaCava, 542 Pa. 160 , 666 A.2d 221, 235 (1995) (failure to sufficiently explain claim waives consideration of claim); Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2 , 645 A.2d 811, 828 (1994) (failure to elaborate on mere assertion renders claim waived). ¶ 13 Judgment of sentence affirmed. .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pursell v. Horn
(2×)
In Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2 , 645 A.2d 811, 821 (1994), the government impeached a key defense witness with the fact that the witness’s prior statement to the police omitted a crucial fact that the witness testified about at trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Simmons
(2×)
See also Commonwealth v. Morris, 546 Pa. 296, 312 , 684 A.2d 1037, 1045 (1996) (speculative claim of ineffectiveness summarily rejected; ineffectiveness claims cannot be raised in vacuum) (citing cases); Commonwealth v. Hentosh, 520 Pa. 325, 334 , 554 A.2d 20, 24 (1989); Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2, 37-38 , 645 A.2d 811, 829 (1994) (boilerplate allegation is no basis for relief in capital PCRA appeal).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Abdul-Salaam
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 829 (Pa.1994) (boilerplate allegation is no basis for relief in capital PCRA appeal).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Williams
(2×)
See also Marrero, 561 Pa. at 105-06 , 748 A.2d at 204-05 (Nigro, J., Concurring) (same); Williams, 557 Pa. at 223 , 732 A.2d at 1175 (recognizing “unavailability of relief based upon undeveloped claims for which insufficient arguments are presented on appeal”); Commonwealth v. LaCava, 542 Pa. 160 , 176 n. 9, 666 A.2d 221 , 229 n. 9 (1995) (claim mentioned in statement of questions in direct capital appeal, but not mentioned again or developed in argument section of brief is waived); Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2, 37 , 645 A.2d 811, 828 (1994) (boilerplate allegation provides no basis fo…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Begley
Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2, 16 , 645 A.2d 811, 818 (1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Weiss
Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2, 16 , 645 A.2d 811, 818 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Bridges
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2 , 645 A.2d 811, 818 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Mason
See Commonwealth v. LaCava, 542 Pa. 160, 188 , 666 A.2d 221, 235 (1995) (failure to sufficiently explain claim waives consideration of claim); Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2, 37 , 645 A.2d 811, 828 (1994) (failure to elaborate on mere assertion renders claim waived).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Cook
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2 , 645 A.2d 811, 823 (1994).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Chandler
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Commonwealth v. LaCava, 542 Pa. 160, 188 , 666 A.2d 221, 235 (1995) (where appellant cited to 21 pages of cross-examination to prove prosecutorial misconduct, but failed to identify which statements were improper and why, claim was waived; "This Court will not make appellant's arguments for him.") (citing Commonwealth v. Jackson, 494 Pa. 457, 459 , 431 A.2d 944 , 945 *411 (1981)); Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2, 37-38 , 645 A.2d 811, 828-29 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Spotz
See Commonwealth v. LaCava, 542 Pa. 160, 188 , 666 A.2d 221, 235 (1995) (failure to sufficiently explain claim waives consideration of claim since this Court will not make an appellant’s arguments for him); Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2, 37 , 645 A.2d 811, 828 (1994) (failure to elaborate on mere assertion renders the claim waived); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 494 Pa. 457 , 459 n. 1, 431 A.2d 944 n. 1 (1981) (appellate claim waived for lack of argument).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Moore
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Miles, 545 Pa. 500, 518 , 681 A.2d 1295, 1304 (1996), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1472 , 137 L.Ed.2d 684 (1997); Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2, 19 , 645 A.2d 811, 819 (1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Garcia
Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. *622 2, 20, 645 A.2d 811, 820 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Collins
Id.; Commonwealth v. Ragan, 588 Pa. 2 , 27-28, 645 A.2d 811, 823-24 (1994); Commonwealth v. Floyd, 494 Pa. 537 , 431 A.2d 984 (1981); Commonwealth v. Martin, 356 Pa.Super. 525, 531 , 515 A.2d 18, 20-21 (1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Young
Commonwealth v. Ragan, 538 Pa. 2, 35 , 645 A.2d 811, 827 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Brel
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See Commonwealth v. Kaipat, 2 N.M.I. 322. 327 (1991); Pennsylvania v. Ragan. 645 A.2d 811, 818 (Pa. 1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Alsbrook, M.
See Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 827 (Pa. 1994) (noting that the test for “remarks made during the ____________________________________________ 5 The officer’s first name was not given. - 19 - J-S37008-23 examination of witnesses” is “whether the unavoidable effect of the contested comments was to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility towards the accused so as to hinder an objective weighing of the evidence and impede the rendering of a true verdict”) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. McGriff, R.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 818-19 (Pa. 1994) (affirming admission of testimony, under state-of-mind exception to the rule against hearsay, that eyewitness told a detective he did not wish to talk to detective in front of his wife because she was pressuring him not to testify); see also id. at 824 (holding prosecution’s questioning of witness about threats to family was permissible to explain prior inconsistent statement).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Ragan, D.
See Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811 (Pa. 1994).1 Ragan did not file a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Goodwin, C.
See Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 824 (Pa. 1994) (indicating that where the purpose of introducing threat evidence is not to establish guilt, but to explain a prior inconsistent statement, it is a permissible use).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Bradshear, R.
This general rule “refers to the relevance of a threat as it bears upon the issue of guilt.” Carr, 259 A.2d at 167 ; accord Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 824 (Pa. 1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Crawley, P.
See Commonwealth v. Ragan, 645 A.2d 811, 818 (Pa. 1994) (holding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for first-degree murder where the Commonwealth presented eyewitness testimony identifying the killer).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jeffrey SCHMOYER, a Minor, by His Parents, Richard and Joan SCHMOYER and Richard and Joan Schmoyer, in Their Own Right, Petitioners,
v.
MEXICO FORGE, INCORPORATED and Markley Farms Swim Club and Raymond Hale, Additional Defendant, v. ZENITH LABORATORIES, INC. Mexico Forge, Inc., Cross-Petitioner
v.
MEXICO FORGE, INCORPORATED and Markley Farms Swim Club and Raymond Hale, Additional Defendant, v. ZENITH LABORATORIES, INC. Mexico Forge, Inc., Cross-Petitioner
Petition 232 Eastern District Allocatur Docket 1993.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jul 21, 1994.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 8 opinions | Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 21st day of July, 1994, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal of Jeffrey, Richard and Joan Schmoyer along with their Application for Relief under Pa.R.A.P. 123 are hereby granted and the Opinion and Judgment of the Superior[*2] Court is reversed to the extent that it affirmed the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County directing a verdict in favor of Mexico Forge, Inc. The manufacturer of a mass produced product, in this case a Spin-Around, is not protected by the Pennsylvania 12 year statute of repose, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5536(a), and a directed verdict should not have been entered in favor of Mexico Forge, Inc., the manufacturer. Noll v. Paddock Pool Builders, Inc., 537 Pa. 274, 643 A.2d 81 (1994); McConnaughey v. Building Components, Inc., 536 Pa. 95, 637 A.2d 1331 ( 994).
The cross-petition for allowance of appeal filed by Mexico Forge, Inc. is denied but this matter is remanded to the Superior Court so it may decide the issues raised by Mexico Forge, Inc., in its appeal to that court but left undecided because of the Superior Court’s disposition of the statute of repose issue.
Mr. Justice Montemuro is sitting by designation as Senior Justice pursuant to Judicial Assignment Docket No. 94 R1801, due to the unavailability of Mr. Justice Larsen, see No. 127 Judicial Administration Docket No. 1, filed October 28, 1993.