green
Positive treatment
Hot · 39 in 5y
Issue: penalty hearingPA ↗
Issue: prejudicial effect errorPA ↗
Issue: deadly weapon presumptionPA ↗
Issue: corpus delicti rulePA ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
99.4 score
G Cite
cited 11× by 11 distinct cases, 2018–2022 ·
…because evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.
at p. 390
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 6× by 4 distinct cases, 2021–2025 ·
…the intimacy involved in stabbing one's victim to death clearly indicates malice and specific intent.
at p. 390
⚠ not in text
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, 2014–2022 ·
…the trial court is free to use its own expressions as long as the concepts at issue are clearly and accurately presented to the jury.
at p. 407
⚠ not in text
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. Smyrnes, R., Aplt.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
the scope of cross-examination is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Quincy, C.
Our Supreme Court has further clarified that “[t]he intimacy involved in stabbing one’s victim to death clearly indicates malice -7- J-A04009-26 and specific intent.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 391 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, M, Aplt.
“Evidence concerning the catchall mitigator tends to be subjective, and the value of that evidence no doubt varies depending upon the context.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 411 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ojeda, M.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 2013) (emphasis added; citation modified); see also Commonwealth v. Packer, 168 A.3d 161, 168 (Pa. 2017) (“Malice is a legal term” that encompasses “not only a particular -7- J-S40042-25 ill-will, but every case where there is a wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of social duty, although a particular person may not be intended to be injured.” (citation omitted)); Newton, 318 A.3d at 139 (“The deadly weapon presumption is a presumption of fact founded on human experie…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Kline, A.
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Further, even where non-photographic evidence can describe the nature and extent of a victim’s injuries, our High Court has held that “the availability of alternate testimonial evidence does not preclude the admission of allegedly inflammatory evidence.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 393 (Pa. 2013) (cleaned up).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ewing, M.
“The admissibility of evidence is at the discretion of the trial court and only a showing of an abuse of that discretion, and resulting prejudice, constitutes reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 392 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Walton, E.
“The intimacy involved in stabbing one’s victim to death clearly indicates malice and specific intent.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. McHenry, S.
“Cross-examination may be employed to test a witness’ story, to impeach credibility, and to establish a witness’[] motive for testifying.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 394 (Pa. 2013) (quoting - 19 - J-S36029-24 Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501, 527 (Pa. 2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Gerkin, M.
The scope of cross-examination is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 394 (Pa. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 940 (2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Jenner, D.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 2013) (emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. O’Searo, 352 A.2d 30, 37 (Pa. 1976) (stating the deadly weapon presumption is a presumption of fact “founded on human experience,” since “[o]ne does not normally use a deadly weapon on a vital part of another’s body unless he intends to kill.” (citation omitted)). - 14 - J-S41009-24 Our Supreme Court has held the period of reflection required … to establish the specific intent to kill may be very brief[.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Peters, L.
See Appellant’s Reply Brief at 4-5 (citing Pa.R.A.P. 302; Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 400 (Pa. 2013) (holding appellant waived claims “by failing to object on those grounds at trial.”); Villani v. Seibert, 159 A.3d 479 , 490 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2017) (declining to reach appellant’s “supplemental argument[s]” which appellee asserted had not been raised below); Foster v. Mut.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Newton, I.
Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 2013).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Newton, I.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Op. at 11 (citing Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 2013) (stating that “the intimacy involved in ____________________________________________ procures a deadly weapon and brings it from some distance to the scene of a fatal attack, the factfinder may infer that the defendant planned to commit murder.” Maj.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Newton, I.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Op. at 11 (citing Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 2013) (stating that “the intimacy involved in ____________________________________________ procures a deadly weapon and brings it from some distance to the scene of a fatal attack, the factfinder may infer that the defendant planned to commit murder.” Maj.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Newton, I.
Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Williams, D.
Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 2013); Commonwealth v. Laird (Laird II), 988 A.2d 618, 624-25 (Pa. 2010); Commonwealth v. Baker, 201 A.3d 791, 795 (Pa. Super. 2018).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hack, R.
“To sustain a conviction for first-degree murder, the Commonwealth must prove that: (1) a human being was unlawfully killed; (2) the accused was responsible for the killing; and (3) the accused acted with malice and a specific intent to kill.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 176 A.3d 298, 306-07 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citing Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 2013)). -7- J-S11027-23 Here, the Commonwealth presented video of Hack near the scene of the crime, wherein he obtained a firearm and gloves before the shooting occurred.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Gallaway, D., Aplt.
(2×)
The trial court’s total failure to consider any safeguards undermines the contention “that the trial judge saw the matter as one calling for discretion.” Deck, 544 U.S. at 634 ; cf. Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 393 (Pa. 2013) (explaining that a trial court abuses “its discretion in admitting [gruesome] photographs when the situation generally entails indifference from the trial court or the Commonwealth to the photographs’ prejudicial effect, or where the precautions taken were not commensurate [J-2-2022] [MO: Todd, J.] - 10 with the nature of the scene depicted”) (emphasi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PSP v. M. Tilton (WCAB)
Com. v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 401 (Pa. 2013); see also Flowers v. Green, 218 A.2d 219, 220 (Pa. 1966) (observing that “[r]ebuttal is proper where facts discrediting the proponent’s witnesses have been offered”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Sargent, C.
A trial court abuses its discretion when it is “indifferent” to the photograph’s prejudicial effect or “where the precautions taken were not commensurate with the nature of the scene depicted.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 393 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Witkowski, K. v. Yaniello, R.
“Because evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. McElroy, D.
“The trial court is free to use its own expressions as long as the concepts at issue are clearly and accurately presented to the jury.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 407 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Stiver, J.
Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 392 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Carroll, R.
Our standard of review is well-established: “The admissibility of evidence is at the discretion of the trial court and only a showing of an abuse of that discretion, and resulting -6- J-A16039-21 prejudice, constitutes reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 622 Pa. 177, 197-98 , 80 A.3d 380, 392 (2013), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 940 , 134 S.Ct. 2842 , 189 L.Ed.2d 824 (2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wolowski, B.
“The admissibility of evidence is at the discretion of the trial court and only a showing of an abuse of that discretion, and resulting prejudice, constitutes reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 622 Pa. 177 , 197- 98, 80 A.3d 380, 392 (2013), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 940 , 134 S.Ct. 2842 , 189 L.Ed.2d 824 (2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Moore, A.
“The admissibility of evidence is at the discretion of the trial court and only a showing of an abuse of that discretion, and resulting prejudice, constitutes reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 622 Pa. 177 , 197- 98, 80 A.3d 380, 392 (2013), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 940 , 134 S.Ct. 2842 , 189 L.Ed.2d 824 (2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Royster, D.
“The admissibility of evidence is at the discretion of the trial court and only a showing of an abuse of that discretion, and resulting prejudice, constitutes reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 622 Pa. 177 , 197- 98, 80 A.3d 380, 392 (2013), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 940 , 134 S.Ct. 2842 , 189 L.Ed.2d 824 (2014).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Kryl, J.
Commonwealth v. Yocolano, 169 A.3d 47, 56 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 401-02 (Pa. 2013)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Collins, D.
“The trial court is free to use its own expressions as long as the concepts at issue are clearly and accurately presented to the jury.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 407 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Moore, A.
“The admissibility of evidence is at the discretion of the trial court and only a showing of an abuse of that discretion, and resulting prejudice, constitutes reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 622 Pa. 177 , 197- 98, 80 A.3d 380, 392 (2013), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 940 , 134 S.Ct. 2842 , 189 L.Ed.2d 824 (2014).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Starks, A.
Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Saylor, J.
“The admissibility of evidence is at the discretion of the trial court and only a showing of an abuse of that discretion, and resulting prejudice, constitutes reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 622 Pa. 177 , 197- 98, 80 A.3d 380, 392 (2013), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 940 , 134 S.Ct. 2842 , 189 L.Ed.2d 824 (2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Hudson-Greenly, J.S.
Thus, we agree that Appellant's claims raised in her concise statement but not developed in her appellate brief have been waived. -3- J-S01043-21 This Court’s standard of review of the trial court’s decisions regarding the admission of evidence at trial is as follows: “The admissibility of evidence is at the discretion of the trial court and only a showing of an abuse of that discretion, and resulting prejudice, constitutes reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 622 Pa. 177, 197-98 , 80 A.3d 380, 392 (2013), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 940 , 134 S.Ct. 2842 , 189 L.Ed.2d 824 (2014).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Harrison, O.
Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 398-99 (Pa. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Fears, 836 A.2d 52 , 69 n.18 (Pa. 2003)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Knight, M., Aplt.
(3×)
“The court must first determine if the photograph is inflammatory and then, if it is, the court must apply a balancing test to determine whether the photograph is of such essential evidentiary value that its need clearly outweighs the likelihood of inflaming the minds and passions of the jury.” Ballard, 80 A.3d at 392-93 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Tirado, J.
“To sustain a conviction for first-degree murder, the Commonwealth must prove that: (1) a human being was unlawfully killed; (2) the accused -6- J-A14017-20 was responsible for the killing; and (3) the accused acted with malice and a specific intent to kill.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 176 A.3d 298, 306-07 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citing Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 2013)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Watkins, S.
“The trial court is free to use its own expressions as long as the concepts at issue are clearly and accurately presented to the jury.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 407 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Colon, P.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 401-02 (Pa. 2013) (citations omitted and some formatting altered); see also U.S. v. Arias-Santos, 39 F.3d 1070, 1074 (10th Cir. 1994) (“Questions directed at revealing that the testimony of a witness was coached are clearly relevant to a jury’s assessment of the reliability of that witness.” (citation omitted)); U.S. v. Carrillo, 16 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Coaching is a proper subject of impeachment in cross-examination.” (citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Colon, P.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 401-02 (Pa. 2013) (citations omitted and some formatting altered); see also U.S. v. Arias-Santos, 39 F.3d 1070, 1074 (10th Cir. 1994) (“Questions directed at revealing that the testimony of a witness was coached are clearly relevant to a jury’s assessment of the reliability of that witness.” (citation omitted)); U.S. v. Carrillo, 16 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Coaching is a proper subject of impeachment in cross-examination.” (citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. T.L.
“The admissibility of evidence is at the discretion of the trial court and only a showing of an abuse of that discretion, and resulting prejudice, constitutes reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 622 Pa. 177 , 197- 98, 80 A.3d 380, 392 (2013), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 940 , 134 S.Ct. 2842 , 189 L.Ed.2d 824 (2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Williams, S.
The standard of review for admission of evidence is as follows: “The admissibility of evidence is at the discretion of the trial court and only a showing of an abuse of that discretion, and resulting prejudice, constitutes reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 622 Pa. 177, 197-98 , 80 A.3d 380, 392 (2013), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2842 , 189 L.Ed.2d 824 (2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Matthews, T.
“The admissibility of evidence is at the discretion of the trial court and only a showing of an abuse of that discretion, and resulting prejudice, constitutes reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 622 Pa. 177, 197-98 , 80 A.3d 380, 392 (2013), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 940 , 134 S.Ct. 2842 , 189 L.Ed.2d 824 (2014).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Raboin, T.
Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 401-02 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Simminger, S.
Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lark, R.
Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 394 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Henderson, J.
"The admissibility of evidence is at the discretion of the trial court and only a showing of an abuse of that discretion, and resulting prejudice, constitutes reversible error." Commonwealth v. Ballard, 622 Pa. 177 , 197- 98, 80 A.3d 380, 392 (2013), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 940 , 134 S.Ct. 2842 , 189 L.Ed.2d 824 (2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Castro-Mota, S.
The standard of review for admission of evidence is as follows: “The admissibility of evidence is at the discretion of the trial court and only a showing of an abuse of that discretion, and resulting prejudice, constitutes reversible error.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 622 Pa. 177, 197-98 , 80 A.3d 380, 392 (2013), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2842 , 189 L.Ed.2d 824 (2014).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Pastrana, G.
Commonwealth v. Ballard, 622 Pa. 177 , 80 A.3d 380, 406 (2013), cert. denied, 573 U.S. 940 , 134 S.Ct. 2842 , 189 L.Ed.2d 824 (2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Le, Tam M., Aplt.
See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(3) (requiring affirmance of the sentence of death unless this Court concludes either of these two factors are present); Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 409-10 (Pa. 2013) (same). 20 Rather, as addressed above in Part II(G), Appellant argued that Pennsylvania’s death penalty statute violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution because it allows a jury to make a factual finding in support of a death sentence in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. 21 N…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Oliver MACKLIN
v.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
v.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
No. 137 EM 2013.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov 21, 2013.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 21st day of November, 2013, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.