prejudicial error in Pennsylvania

2024Instead, it is only those references that expressly or by reasonable implication also indicate some involvement in prior criminal activity that rise to the level of prejudicial error.” Commonwealth v. Young, 849 A.2d 1152, 1156 (Pa. 2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

2024References to photographs of a defendant “that expressly or by reasonable implication also indicate some involvement in prior criminal activity . . . rise to the level of prejudicial error.” Commonwealth v. Young, 849 A.2d 1152, 1156 (Pa. 2004).

2026This choice, we held, was prejudicial 43 See Davenport, 308 A.2d at 86-87 (holding that the prospect of the witness refusing to testify should be settled outside the presence of the jury by assessing the witness’ intentions before that witness goes before the jury); accord Commonwealth v. Johnson, 488 A.2d 327, 329-330 (Pa. Super. 1985). 44 See, e.g., Virtu, 432 A.2d at 200-201 (identifying as “misconduct” the prosecutor’s insistence upon calling a witness to the stand who he knew intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment in front of the jury). 45 The Superior Court in this case seemed to acknowl

2026This choice, we held, was prejudicial 43 See Davenport, 308 A.2d at 86-87 (holding that the prospect of the witness refusing to testify should be settled outside the presence of the jury by assessing the witness’ intentions before that witness goes before the jury); accord Commonwealth v. Johnson, 488 A.2d 327, 329-330 (Pa. Super. 1985). 44 See, e.g., Virtu, 432 A.2d at 200-201 (identifying as “misconduct” the prosecutor’s insistence upon calling a witness to the stand who he knew intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment in front of the jury). 45 The Superior Court in this case seemed to acknowl

2026This choice, we held, was prejudicial 43 See Davenport, 308 A.2d at 86-87 (holding that the prospect of the witness refusing to testify should be settled outside the presence of the jury by assessing the witness’ intentions before that witness goes before the jury); accord Commonwealth v. Johnson, 488 A.2d 327, 329-330 (Pa. Super. 1985). 44 See, e.g., Virtu, 432 A.2d at 200-201 (identifying as “misconduct” the prosecutor’s insistence upon calling a witness to the stand who he knew intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment in front of the jury). 45 The Superior Court in this case seemed to acknowl

2026This choice, we held, was prejudicial 43 See Davenport, 308 A.2d at 86-87 (holding that the prospect of the witness refusing to testify should be settled outside the presence of the jury by assessing the witness’ intentions before that witness goes before the jury); accord Commonwealth v. Johnson, 488 A.2d 327, 329-330 (Pa. Super. 1985). 44 See, e.g., Virtu, 432 A.2d at 200-201 (identifying as “misconduct” the prosecutor’s insistence upon calling a witness to the stand who he knew intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment in front of the jury). 45 The Superior Court in this case seemed to acknowl

2020Weaver contends that the court’s overruling of his objection was not harmless, because “the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt” was not “so overwhelming and the prejudicial of the error . . . so -7- J-A11024-20 insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.” Weaver’s Br. at 23 (quoting Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 626 A.2d 141, 144 (Pa. 1993)).

2020The “heavy consequence of waiver,” Jones, 191 A.3d at 787 (quotation marks and citation omitted), applies whether trial counsel strategically (or inadvertently) failed to request a mistrial after a single prejudicial error or instead after multiple prejudicial errors. [J-87-2019] - 21 2018 WL 3358598 , at *6 n.7; see also id. at *7 (declaring “that this omission d[id] not preclude the trial court from granting a new trial sua sponte”).

2018Williams v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 741 A.2d 848, 855, n.7 (Pa. Cmnwlth. 1999); Feingold v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 488 A.2d 284, 287 (Pa. Super. 1985); Konstantopoulous v. Westvaco Corp. 112 F.3d 710, 719 (3d Cir. 1997). 6.

2018Williams v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 741 A.2d 848, 855, n.7 (Pa. Cmnwlth. 1999); Feingold v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 488 A.2d 284, 287 (Pa. Super. 1985); Konstantopoulous v. Westvaco Corp. 112 F.3d 710, 719 (3d Cir. 1997). 6.

2018Williams v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 741 A.2d 848, 855, n.7 (Pa. Cmnwlth. 1999); Feingold v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 488 A.2d 284, 287 (Pa. Super. 1985); Konstantopoulous v. Westvaco Corp. 112 F.3d 710, 719 (3d Cir. 1997). 6.

2014Again, he raises the lack of evidence and failure to instruct on Plaintiffs purported duty of good faith and fair dealing with relation to the billing.5 With regard to a request for a JNOV,the following is instructive: "In reviewing a trial court's decision whether or not to grant judgment in favor of one of the parties, we must "consider the evidence, together with all favorable inferences drawn therefrorn, in a light rnost favorable to the verdict winner," Walker v. Grand Central Sanitation, Inc., 430 Pa.Super. 236 , 634 A.2d 237, 240 (Pa.Super.1993).

2014Again, he raises the lack of evidence and failure to instruct on Plaintiffs purported duty of good faith and fair dealing with relation to the billing.5 With regard to a request for a JNOV,the following is instructive: "In reviewing a trial court's decision whether or not to grant judgment in favor of one of the parties, we must "consider the evidence, together with all favorable inferences drawn therefrorn, in a light rnost favorable to the verdict winner," Walker v. Grand Central Sanitation, Inc., 430 Pa.Super. 236 , 634 A.2d 237, 240 (Pa.Super.1993).

2004In support of his argument, Appellant cites to Commonwealth v. Groce, 452 Pa. 15 , 303 A.2d 917 , cert. denied, 414 U.S. 975 , 94 S.Ct. 290 , 38 L.Ed.2d 219 (1973), where this Court found prejudicial error when a police officer, while testifying for the Commonwealth, revealed that he came across defendant’s nickname during prior investigations and discovered his last name after searching through the police files.

2004In support of his argument, Appellant cites to Commonwealth v. Groce, 452 Pa. 15 , 303 A.2d 917 , cert. denied, 414 U.S. 975 , 94 S.Ct. 290 , 38 L.Ed.2d 219 (1973), where this Court found prejudicial error when a police officer, while testifying for the Commonwealth, revealed that he came across defendant’s nickname during prior investigations and discovered his last name after searching through the police files.

2002Defendants chose the latter and now claim the trial court committed prejudicial error by precluding defendants from presenting the surveillance videotape of Mrs. Gross. 1 “The admission of photographic or videotaped evidence is always within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” Commonwealth v. Long, 425 Pa. Super. 170, 183-84 , 624 A.2d 200, 207 (1993), alloc. denied, 535 Pa. 645 , 633 A.2d 150 (1993).

2002Defendants chose the latter and now claim the trial court committed prejudicial error by precluding defendants from presenting the surveillance videotape of Mrs. Gross. 1 “The admission of photographic or videotaped evidence is always within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” Commonwealth v. Long, 425 Pa. Super. 170, 183-84 , 624 A.2d 200, 207 (1993), alloc. denied, 535 Pa. 645 , 633 A.2d 150 (1993).

1999James v. Ferguson, 401 Pa. 92, 97 , 162 A.2d 690, 693 (1960).

1999James v. Ferguson, 401 Pa. 92, 97 , 162 A.2d 690, 693 (1960).

1997Millen v. Miller, 224 Pa. Super. 569, 572 , 308 A.2d 115, 117 (1973).

1997Millen v. Miller, 224 Pa. Super. 569, 572 , 308 A.2d 115, 117 (1973).

1997Rule 4020(a) permits the use of such video depositions at trial “so far as admissible under the rules of evidence.” Pascone v. Thomas Jefferson University, 357 Pa. Super. 524, 529 , 516 A.2d 384, 387 (1986), alloc. denied, 517 Pa. 320 , 536 A.2d 338 (1988).

1997Rule 4020(a) permits the use of such video depositions at trial “so far as admissible under the rules of evidence.” Pascone v. Thomas Jefferson University, 357 Pa. Super. 524, 529 , 516 A.2d 384, 387 (1986), alloc. denied, 517 Pa. 320 , 536 A.2d 338 (1988).