Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. LaCavagreen2 sentences2015See Commonwealth v. LaCava, 666 A.2d 221 (Pa. 1995) (any error in admission of the bad acts in capital murder prosecution was cured by trial court’s cautionary instruction limiting the jury’s consideration of bad acts). 2014See Commonwealth v. LaCava, 542 Pa. 160 , 666 A.2d 221 (1995) (any error in admission of the bad acts in capital murder prosecution was cured by trial court’s cautionary instruction limiting the jury’s consideration of bad acts evidence). | 2 | 2 |
Blumer v. Ford Motor Co.green1 sentence2025See id. (“The law presumes that the jury will follow the - 35 - J-S36005-25 instructions of the court.”) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Travagliagreen1 sentence2023Id. at 113. - 10 - J-A01041-23 Further, the court provided the jury with a limiting instruction regarding use of this evidence for identity purposes only.12 Id., 11/12/21, at 137-38; Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2) (cmt) (cautionary jury instruction may ameliorate prejudicial effect of proffered evidence); see Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 28 A.3d 868, 882 (Pa. 2011) (presumption jury adheres to limiting instructions). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Weissgreen1 sentence2018See Weiss, 81 A.3d at 798 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Tysongreen1 sentence2018See Tyson, supra. Moreover, the trial court provided the jury with a limiting instruction regarding M.M.’s testimony and emphasized the limited purpose for which the evidence was admissible, thereby minimizing any prejudicial effect. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.