green
Positive treatment
Hot · 41 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 1×
102.3 score
“when the trial court gives adequate cautionary instructions, declaration of a mistrial is not necessary.”
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Commonwealth v. Laird
when the trial court gives adequate cautionary instructions, declaration of a mistrial is not necessary.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Christian, T.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Santibanez, S.
“The admissibility of evidence [at sentencing] rests with the sound discretion of the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 726 (Pa. 2013).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Adams Diaz, S.
(5×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hawkins, Q.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218 , 67 A.34 716, 727 (2013); Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218 , 67 A.3d 716, 727 (2013); Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 611 Pa. 280 , 25 A.3d 277, 307 (2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Anderson, B.
Christine, Christine, 633 633 Pa. Pa. 389, 389, 397, 397, 125 125 A.3d A.3d394, 394,398 398 (2015) (2015) quoting quotingCommonwealth Commonwealt v. Bryant, v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218, 235 , 67 A.3d 716 , 726 (2013) quoting Commonwealth v. Eichenger, 591 620 Pa. 218, 235 , 67 A.3d 716, 726 (2013) quoting Commonwealth ».
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Procopio, S.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Valona, G.
“It is not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion[, rather,] it is necessary to show an actual abuse of the [trial court’s] discretionary power.” Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 726 (Pa. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Fields, R.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: I.M., Appeal of: I.M.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wood, A.
“It is not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion[, rather,] it is necessary to show an actual abuse of the [trial court’s] discretionary power.” Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 726 (Pa. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Coffee, T.
"It is well-established that 'comments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in [the jurors'] minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and 25 render a fair verdict."' Commonwealth v. Arrington, 86 A.3d 831, 853 (Pa. 2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 727 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Fornwald, T.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ghimirey, J.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218, 232 , 67 A.3d 716, 724 (2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Perez, 577 Pa. 360, 374-75 , 845 A.2d 779, 788 (2004)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Shields, T.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013) (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058, 1068 (Pa. Super. 2015). - 18 - J-A28045-23 The final portion of the Commonwealth’s summation was, in context, an aggressive argument by the prosecutor to rebut the attacks on the victim, an admitted drug dealer, while providing the jury with a reason for why they had spent a week in trial over an alleged drug debt that turned violent.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Shields, C.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013) (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Riggle, 119 A.3d 1058, 1068 (Pa. Super. 2015).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Qawiee, A.
This issue concerns the admissibility of evidence, which rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and therefore, we “will reverse [the] trial court’s decision … only if the appellant sustains the ‘heavy burden’ to show - 10 - J-A10034-24 that the trial court has abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 726 (Pa. 2013) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Blackston, M.
It is well established that “[a] trial court may grant a mistrial only where the incident upon which the motion is based is of such a nature that its unavoidable effect is to deprive the defendant of a fair trial by preventing the jury from weighing and rendering a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Brooks, T.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
A mistrial is an extreme remedy that is appropriate “only where the incident upon which the motion is based is of such a nature that its unavoidable effect is to deprive the defendant of a fair trial by preventing the jury from weighing [the evidence] and rendering a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Williams, K.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 724 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Murphy, J.
We will reverse and remand for a new trial only when the “unavoidable effect [of the statements] is to prejudice the jury, forming in the jurors’ minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a fair verdict.” Id. at 853 (quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 727 (Pa. 2013) (brackets omitted)). - 13 - J-S20027-23 A prosecutor has “reasonable latitude” in an opening statement, which should “apprise the jury of how the case will develop, its background[,] and what will be attempted to be proved.” Commo…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Rosa, E.
“In reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion for a mistrial, our standard is abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Dickerson, D.
Commonwealth v. Leap, 222 A.3d 386, 392 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citing Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Bailey, D.
With regard to victim impact statements, this Court recently explained: “The admissibility of evidence, including victim impact evidence, rests with the sound discretion of the trial court.” -7- J-A02024-23 Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 726 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Rosario, J.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 727-28 (Pa. 2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (brackets in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Knight, A.
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013). “[N]ot every inappropriate remark by a prosecutor constitutes reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Noel, 53 A.3d 848, 858 (Pa. Super. 2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Dejesus-Gonzalez, J.
However, if the trial court gives adequate cautionary instructions, “declaration of a mistrial is not necessary.” Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Otero-Velez, D.
Likewise, "circumstantial evidence[, by which the Commonwealth may prove specific intent,] may consist of the accused’s use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the victim’s body.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 728 A.2d 923, 929 (Pa. 1999); Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 721 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Sones, T.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ivy, G.
Nevertheless, even if a prosecutor’s remarks were prejudicial, “prejudice by prosecutorial remarks can be cured by instructions from the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Carter, 643 A.2d 61, 77 (Pa. 1994); see also Jones, 668 A.2d at 504 (law presumes jury will follow trial court’s curative instructions); Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013) (new trial not warranted where trial court gives adequate cautionary instruction).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. McKenzie, E.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In his second issue, McKenzie argues that “the court erred in denying [his] motion[] for a mistrial” where “the District Attorney committed prosecutorial misconduct by insinuating that [McKenzie] had a prior criminal record in front of the jury.” (McKenzie’s Brief, at 13, 15).5, 6 The Commonwealth maintains that this issue is waived and would not merit relief because this issue was decided previously by this Court in Commonwealth v. Lunsford, 2021 WL 2531151 , unpublished memorandum, (Pa. Super. filed ____________________________________________ 5 It is well-settled that the award of…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Fiorentino, A.
Nevertheless, even if a prosecutor’s remarks were prejudicial, “prejudice by prosecutorial remarks can be cured by instructions from the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Carter, 643 A.2d 61, 77 (Pa. 1994); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 668 A.2d 491 , 504 (Pa. 1994) (law presumes jury will follow trial court’s curative instruction); Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013) (new trial not warranted where trial court gives adequate cautionary instruction).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Seals, D.
When on review, “[c]omments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in the jurors' minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a fair verdict.” Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 727 (Pa, 2013) (internal markings and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Richardson, A.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Furthermore, “[w]hen the trial court gives adequate cautionary instructions, - 18 - J-S22027-21 declaration of a mistrial is not necessary.” Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Johnson, J.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lunsford, W.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Jury Trial, 12/12/19, at 50. -5- J-A06028-21 such a nature that its unavoidable effect is to deprive the defendant of a fair trial by preventing the jury from weighing and rendering a true verdict.” See Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 727-28 (Pa. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381, 408 (Pa. 2011) and Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 28 A.3d 868, 879 (Pa. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Veasy, J.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 724 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Iowa v. Jacob A. Boothby
Ct. App. 2010); Francis v. State, 781 N.W.2d 892, 895 (Minn. 2010); Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 722 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Iowa v. Jacob A. Boothby
Ct. App. 2010); Francis v. State, 781 N.W.2d 892, 895 (Minn. 2010); Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 722 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Veasy, J.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 724 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Brozenick, R.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Adams, J.
Our Supreme Court has recognized that “[w]hen the trial court gives adequate cautionary instructions, declaration of a mistrial is not necessary.” Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Moore, M.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 724 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
BRYANT v. GILMORE
(3×)
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 720 (2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Minnich, C.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
When the evidence supports the factual findings, we are bound by such findings; we may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are erroneous. -8- J-A01015-20 Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 724 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Myers, J.
A. Relevant Legal Principles The admissibility of evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and its decision will only be reversed if the court's conclusion "overrides or misapplies the law, or where the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will." Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 726 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lee, A.
“A trial court should grant a motion for mistrial only where the incident upon which the motion is based is of such a nature that its unavoidable effect -8- J-S59041-19 is to deprive the defendant of a fair trial by preventing the jury from weighing and rendering a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013) (citing Chamberlain, 30 A.3d at 422 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Valdez-Torres, R.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 721 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Leap, J.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Leap, J.
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 67 A.3d 716, 728 (Pa. 2013).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re COUNTY INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY XXV FOR THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. Petition of R.L., Witness
No. 30 EM 2013.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 23, 2013.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2013, the Motion to File Under Seal is GRANTED, and the Petition for Review, the Petition for Leave to File Reply, and the Motion Seeking Leave to File Supplement to Petition for Leave to File Reply to the Commonwealth’s Answer are DENIED.