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 3 courts 1990–2015 0 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. Kleingreen1 sentence2015For purposes of REAP, a person acts recklessly when he or she acts in “conscious disregard of a known risk of death or great bodily injury to another person.” See Commonwealth v. Klein, 795 A.2d 424, 427-28 (Pa. Super. 2002)(citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Murphygreen2 sentences2006Id. at 286 , 844 A.2d at 1234 (internal citations omitted). ¶ 36 Instantly, the trial court concluded that ample evidence supported Appellant’s convictions as an accomplice and co-conspirator in Husband’s murder: The fact that the principal, Terry Wingler, who fired the fatal shots into Husband was convicted of murder of the third degree does not bar the conviction of Appellant, as an accomplice, for murder of the first degree. 2006Id. at 286 , 844 A.2d at 1234 (internal citations omitted). ¶ 36 Instantly, the trial court concluded that ample evidence supported Appellant’s convictions as an accomplice and co-conspirator in Husband’s murder: The fact that the principal, Terry Wingler, who fired the fatal shots into Husband was convicted of murder of the third degree does not bar the conviction of Appellant, as an accomplice, for murder of the first degree. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Uhrinekgreen2 sentences1991The court stated: ‘An accused has a fundamental right to present defensive evidence so long as such evidence is relevant and not excluded by an established evidentiary rule.’ Once it is determined that the proffered evidence was relevant, due process requires its admission. ‘Even the most myopic interpretation of [Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution] would necessarily concede the right to offer relevant evidence to challenge a material issue of fact.’ ‘Causation is an issue of fact for the jury.’ Id., 518 Pa. at 542 , 544 A.2d at 952 (citations omitted.) As in Uhrinek , Appel 1991The court stated: ‘An accused has a fundamental right to present defensive evidence so long as such evidence is relevant and not excluded by an established evidentiary rule.’ Once it is determined that the proffered evidence was relevant, due process requires its admission. ‘Even the most myopic interpretation of [Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution] would necessarily concede the right to offer relevant evidence to challenge a material issue of fact.’ ‘Causation is an issue of fact for the jury.’ Id., 518 Pa. at 542 , 544 A.2d at 952 (citations omitted.) As in Uhrinek , Appel | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Hernandez
green
2 sentences1990In Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 339 Pa. Super. 32 , 488 A.2d 293 (1985), the court held this section constitutional. 1990In Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 339 Pa. Super. 32 , 488 A.2d 293 (1985), the court held this section constitutional. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Commonwealth v. Voshall
green
2 sentences1990This issue is controlled by our recent decision in Commonwealth v. Voshall, 387 Pa.Super. 47 , 563 A.2d 936 (1989). 1990This issue is controlled by our recent decision in Commonwealth v. Voshall, 387 Pa.Super. 47 , 563 A.2d 936 (1989). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.