Commonwealth v. Eichinger (2007)

See, e.g., Eichinger, 915 A.2d at 1139 (“[O]ur trial judges are more than capable of overseeing the presentation of evidence so that overtly passionate, intentionally biased and inflammatory material is kept out of the courtroom.”).

See id. (“it remains implicit in this analysis that there be a conflict between the substantive law of New Jersey and the law of Pennsylvania”).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).

Our Supreme Court has stated that “that life has intrinsic value and should not be taken by the state without good cause, proven to our highest standard, whereas life imprisonment remains our default punishment for capital cases.” See Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1138 (Pa. 2007).

See, e.g. , Eichinger , 915 A.2d at 1139 ("[O]ur trial judges are more than capable of overseeing the presentation of *1083 evidence so that overtly passionate, intentionally biased and inflammatory material is kept out of the courtroom.").

“The trial court is free to use its own expression as long as the concepts at issue are clearly and accurately presented to the jury.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1138 (Pa. 2007)).

We review the suppression court’s denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the record supports the court’s factual findings and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. -5- J-S10012-26 Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007).

See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Daniels, 104 A.3d 267, 313 (Pa. 2014); Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1144-45 (Pa. 2007); Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 861 A.2d 898, 910-11 (Pa. 2004).

The initial question is whether New York or Pennsylvania law applies. “[W]e have adopted a flexible choice of law rule which weighs the interests -5- J-A27043-25 our sister-states may have in the transaction.” Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1133 (Pa. 2007) (citation omitted).

An abuse of discretion “will not be found based on a mere error of judgment, but rather exists where the court has reached a conclusion which 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. Frein, 206 A.3d 1049, 1072 (Pa. 2019) (quoting Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1140 (Pa. 2007)).

Indeed: “When a trial court comes to a conclusion through the exercise of its discretion, there is a heavy burden on the appellant to show that this discretion has been abused.” Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 591 Pa. 1 , 915 A.2d 1122, 1140 (2007) (citation omitted).

Id. at 1139-40 (internal citations omitted).

Our standard of review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is well-established: [O]ur applicable standard of review is “whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict[-]winner, was sufficient to enable the fact[-]finder to conclude that the Commonwealth established all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. …

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).

“When a trial court comes to a conclusion through the exercise of its discretion, there is a heavy burden on the appellant to show that this discretion has been abused.” Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1140 (Pa. 2007) (citation omitted).

Our standard of review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is well-established: [O]ur applicable standard of review is “whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict[-]winner, was sufficient to enable the fact[-]finder to conclude that the Commonwealth established all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. …

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007).

Eichinger, 591 Pa. 1, 20 (Pa. 2007) (finding no conflict between the New Jersey and Pennsylvania law in question and applying Pennsylvania law after holding that “any interest New Jersey might have in th[e] transaction is rendered moot by that lack of conflict”); State Farm Fire and Cas.

In order to do so, the Commonwealth must demonstrate that the proper warnings were given, and that the accused manifested an understanding of these warnings.” Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1135-1136 (Pa. 2007) (brackets omitted), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 894 (2007).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).

“Where the record supports the findings of the suppression court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error.” Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007). -5- J-A27005-22 B.

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1130 (Pa. 6 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2702(A)(1) 7 § 2701(A)(1), (A)(2) 8 § 2705 4 1_Statement Pursuant to PA R.A.P.

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 591 Pa. 1 , 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (2007) (citations omitted).

It is well-settled that “[a]n abuse of discretion will not be found based on a mere error of judgment, but rather exists where the [trial] court has reached a conclusion which overrides or misapplies the law, or where the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill- will.” Id. at 120 (quoting Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1140 (Pa. 2007)).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007).

Norton, 201 A.3d at 116, 120 .8 “An abuse of discretion will not be found based on a mere error of judgment, but rather exists where the [trial] court has reached a conclusion ____________________________________________ 7 The Commonwealth has not filed a brief. 8 See also Pa.R.Crim.P. 591(A) (“At any time before the imposition of sentence, the court may, in its discretion, permit, upon motion of the defendant, or direct, sua sponte, the withdrawal of a plea of guilty or nol…

"When a trial court comes to a conclusion through the exercise of its discretion, there is a heavy burden on the appellant to show that this discretion has been abused." Commonwealth v. Gill, 206 AJd 459,466 (Pa. 2019) citing Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 591 Pa. I, 915 A.2d 1122, 1140 (2007).

This Court “will not find an abuse of discretion ‘based on mere error of judgment, but rather … where the [trial] court has reached a conclusion which overrides or misapplies the law, or where the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.’” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1140 (Pa. 2007)).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).

In Commonwealth v. Norton, 201 A.3d 112 (Pa. 2019), our Supreme Court stressed that “[w]hen a [trial] court comes to a conclusion through the exercise of its discretion, there is a heavy burden on the appellant to show that this discretion has been abused.” Id. at 120 (quoting Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1140 (Pa. 2007)).

In order to do so, the Commonwealth must demonstrate that the proper warnings were given, and that the accused manifested an understanding of these warnings.” Commonwealth v. Baez, 21 A.3d 1280, 1283 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 614 Pa. 699 , 37 A.3d 1193 (2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 591 Pa. 1, 24 , 915 A.2d 1122, 1135-36 (2007)).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 591 Pa. 1 , 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (2007) (citations omitted).

Ed. 2d 656 (1973). - 28 - J-A11019-21 are in error. [Id.] Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 591 Pa. 1, 22 , 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 894 , 128 S.Ct. 211 , 169 L.Ed.2d 158 (2007).

Moreover, “[i]n reviewing a challenge to a jury instruction the entire charge is considered, not merely discrete portions thereof.” Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1138 (2007) (quotations omitted).

However, Pennsylvania courts did not directly address Seibert in a published opinion until 2011, approximately two years after Appellant’s suppression hearing and subsequent conviction, but before his direct appeal nunc pro tunc.9 Specifically, in Commonwealth v. Charleston, 16 A.3d 505 (Pa. Super. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073 (Pa. 2013), this Court concluded that “Seibert establishes no new binding ___________________________________________…

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1136 (Pa. 2007).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1136 (Pa. 2007).

“When a trial court comes to a conclusion through the exercise of its discretion, there is a heavy burden on the appellant to show that this discretion has been abused.” Commonwealth v. Norton, 201 A.3d 112, 120 (Pa. 2019) (brackets omitted) (quoting Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1140 (Pa. 2007)).

“An appellate court will not find an abuse of discretion ‘based on a mere error of judgment, but rather ... where the [trial] court has reached a conclusion which overrides or misapplies the law, or where the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.’” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1140 (Pa. 2007) (citation omitted)).

To establish that, “the Commonwealth must demonstrate that the proper warnings were given, and that the accused manifested an understanding of these warnings.” Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1136 (Pa. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 894 (2007).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).

Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).