G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…does a sentencing judge have discretion to consider victim impact evidence where the offense is not a 'crime against a person?
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Campbell, M.
However, the Commonwealth asserts that 7 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal in Ali to consider the following question: “Does a sentencing judge have discretion to consider victim impact evidence where the offense is not a ‘crime against a person’?” Ali, 127 A.3d at 1286-87. -7- J-S42038-16 “any error in allowing the statement of [child’s mother] was harmless because it is evident from the record that the [trial] court was not improperly influenced by it.” Id. at 7.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Monroe, M.
Ali, 127 A.3d at 1287. -5- J-S61018-16 considered by the court.
examined
Cited "see"
Estate of: I. Wilner Appeal of: Baker, L.
(3×)
See Estate of Wilner, ___ Pa. ___, 127 A.3d 1286 (2014) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ESTATE OF Isabel WILNER, Deceased. Petition of Linda Baker
390 MAL 2014 (Granted).
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov 26, 2014.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 26th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue is:
Whether this Court should accept jurisdiction to determine if it should overrule the rigid application of the irrebutable “two witness” rule, particularly in cases where a disinterested scrivener, an officer of the [cjourt, testifies credibly concerning the contents of the [w]ill and where[,] based on the overwhelming evidence in the case as determined by the trier of fact[,] application of the rule would create the very injustice that it was intended to avoid[,]
Petitioner’s Application for Leave to File a Reply to Answer to address her standing in this matter is DENIED, as respondent waived the issue of petitioner’s standing by failing to raise it in the Superior Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); In re Condemnation by Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pitts burgh, 590 Pa. 431, 913 A.2d 178, 181 n. 6 (2006) (noting standing in Pennsylvania is nonjurisdictional and therefore waivable (citation omitted)).