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.
34 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 1928–2026 12 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. Leakgreen2 sentences2026“The Commonwealth may not be deprived of its ability to present inculpatory evidence at trial merely because the defendant, despite having the opportunity to do so, did not cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing as extensively as he might have done at trial.” Id. at 1045 (quotation omitted). 2022As Appellant presents no other argument to support this issue, we dismiss it as meritless. ____________________________________________ 4 See also Commonwealth v. Leak, 22 A.3d 1036, 1045 (Pa. Super 2011) (noting, “The Commonwealth may not be deprived of its ability to present inculpatory evidence at trial merely because the defendant, despite having the opportunity to do so, did not cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing stage as extensively as he might have done at trial.”). - 16 - J-S35042-22 Judgment of sentence is AFFIRMED. | 11 | 15 |
Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centenogreen2 sentences2023Cruz-Centeno argued that the trial court erred, as “he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine fully the witness at the preliminary hearing in this case.” Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d at 542 . 2023Cruz-Centeno argued that the trial court erred, as “he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine fully the witness at the preliminary hearing in this case.” Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d at 542 . | 7 | 8 |
Commonwealth v. Leanergreen2 sentences2024“The Commonwealth may not be deprived of its ability to present inculpatory evidence at trial merely because the defendant, despite having the opportunity to do so, did not cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing as extensively as he might have done at trial.” Leaner, 202 A.3d at 775 (quoting Leak). 2024“The Commonwealth may not be deprived of its ability to present inculpatory evidence at trial merely because the defendant, despite having the opportunity to do so, did not cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing as extensively as he might have done at trial.” Commonwealth v. Leaner, 202 A.3d 749, 775 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). | 5 | 7 |
Commonwealth v. Bazemoregreen2 sentences2025Therefore, this Court found the prior inconsistent statement was properly admitted at the preliminary hearing, even though Stays did not choose to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing, because “Stays was offered the opportunity at the preliminary hearing to cross- examine [the witness] about the original statement and the photo array identification, as well as [the witness’s] attempted recantation.” Id. 2017“The Commonwealth may not be deprived of its ability to present inculpatory evidence at trial merely because the defendant, despite having the opportunity to do so, did not cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing stage as extensively as he might have done at trial.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 758 A.2d 166, 169 (Pa. Super. 2000), appeal denied, 781 A.2d 140 (Pa. 2001) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Bazemore, 614 A.2d 684, 687 (Pa. 1992) (reasoning that “[w]hether prior testimony was given at trial or at any other proceeding, where, as here, admission of that prior testi | 4 | 8 |
Commonwealth v. Wholavergreen2 sentences2026Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 989 A.2d 883, 901-05 (Pa. 2010); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 152 A.3d 355, 358-59 (Pa. Super. 2016); Commonwealth v. Leak, 22 A.3d 1036, 1043-47 (Pa. Super. 2011). 2023Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 989 A.2d 883, 901-05 (Pa. 2010); Commonwealth v. Leaner, 202 A.3d 749, 775-77 (Pa. Super. 2019); Mitchell, 152 A.3d at 358-59 ; Commonwealth v. Buford, 101 A.3d 1182, 1195-97 (Pa. Super. 2014); Commonwealth v. Leak, 22 A.3d 1036 , 1043- 47 (Pa. Super. 2011). | 4 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2026Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 989 A.2d 883, 901-05 (Pa. 2010); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 152 A.3d 355, 358-59 (Pa. Super. 2016); Commonwealth v. Leak, 22 A.3d 1036, 1043-47 (Pa. Super. 2011). 2024Commonwealth v. Grush, 295 A.3d 247, 251-52 (Pa. Super. 2023); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 152 A.3d 355, 358-59 (Pa. Super. 2016); Commonwealth v. Leak, 22 A.3d 1036, 1043-47 (Pa. Super. 2011). -6- J-S23033-24 If the defendant was not denied vital impeachment evidence with respect to the witness at the time of the preliminary hearing and his counsel’s cross-examination of the witness was not restricted, a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine existed and admission of the unavailable witness’s preliminary hearing testimony does not violate the defendant’s right of confrontation. | 3 | 6 |
Commonwealth v. Bufordgreen2 sentences2023Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 989 A.2d 883, 901-05 (Pa. 2010); Commonwealth v. Leaner, 202 A.3d 749, 775-77 (Pa. Super. 2019); Mitchell, 152 A.3d at 358-59 ; Commonwealth v. Buford, 101 A.3d 1182, 1195-97 (Pa. Super. 2014); Commonwealth v. Leak, 22 A.3d 1036 , 1043- 47 (Pa. Super. 2011). 2019Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 989 A.2d 883, 901-05 (Pa. 2010); Commonwealth v. Leaner, 202 A.3d 749, 775-77 (Pa. Super. 2019); Mitchell, 152 A.3d at 358-59 ; Commonwealth v. Buford, 101 A.3d 1182, 1195-97 (Pa. Super. 2014); Commonwealth v. Leak, 22 A.3d 1036 , 1043- 47 (Pa. Super. 2011). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2026“The Commonwealth may not be deprived of its ability to present inculpatory evidence at trial merely because the defendant, despite having the opportunity to do so, did not cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing stage as extensively as he might have done at trial.” Commonwealth v. Thompson, 648 A.2d 315, 322 (Pa. 1994) (footnote omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Wayne, 720 A.2d 456, 466 (Pa. 1999) (affirming the admission of preliminary hearing testimony at trial of an unavailable witness who identified Wayne as a co-conspirator to murder, where unlike in Bazemore, Wayne was pro | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Waynegreen1 sentence2026“The Commonwealth may not be deprived of its ability to present inculpatory evidence at trial merely because the defendant, despite having the opportunity to do so, did not cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing stage as extensively as he might have done at trial.” Commonwealth v. Thompson, 648 A.2d 315, 322 (Pa. 1994) (footnote omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Wayne, 720 A.2d 456, 466 (Pa. 1999) (affirming the admission of preliminary hearing testimony at trial of an unavailable witness who identified Wayne as a co-conspirator to murder, where unlike in Bazemore, Wayne was pro | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Grush, S.green2 sentences2024Commonwealth v. Grush, 295 A.3d 247, 251-52 (Pa. Super. 2023); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 152 A.3d 355, 358-59 (Pa. Super. 2016); Commonwealth v. Leak, 22 A.3d 1036, 1043-47 (Pa. Super. 2011). -6- J-S23033-24 If the defendant was not denied vital impeachment evidence with respect to the witness at the time of the preliminary hearing and his counsel’s cross-examination of the witness was not restricted, a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine existed and admission of the unavailable witness’s preliminary hearing testimony does not violate the defendant’s right of confrontation. 2024Grush, 295 A.3d at 256-59 (late disclosure of information concerning witness’s criminal history did not bar admission of preliminary hearing testimony where witness admitted that he had a criminal history at the preliminary hearing and any additional impeachment value could be obtained by introduction of ____________________________________________ 2 Appellant also did not have Volpe’s videotaped affirmation of his statement before the preliminary hearing, but it was undisputed that the video affirmation simply showed Volpe confirming that the statement was his and was signed by him and added | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2017“The Commonwealth may not be deprived of its ability to present inculpatory evidence at trial merely because the defendant, despite having the opportunity to do so, did not cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing stage as extensively as he might have done at trial.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 758 A.2d 166, 169 (Pa. Super. 2000), appeal denied, 781 A.2d 140 (Pa. 2001) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Bazemore, 614 A.2d 684, 687 (Pa. 1992) (reasoning that “[w]hether prior testimony was given at trial or at any other proceeding, where, as here, admission of that prior testi | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Manginigreen2 sentences2001See Commonwealth v. Bazemore, 581 Pa. 582 , 614 A.2d 684, 685 (1992) (relying on Commonwealth v. Mangini, 493 Pa. 203 , 425 A.2d 734 (1981)). ¶4 This court rejected McCandless’s claim and adopted the trial court’s assessment of the issue. 2001See Commonwealth v. Bazemore, 581 Pa. 582 , 614 A.2d 684, 685 (1992) (relying on Commonwealth v. Mangini, 493 Pa. 203 , 425 A.2d 734 (1981)). ¶4 This court rejected McCandless’s claim and adopted the trial court’s assessment of the issue. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trach v. Fellin
green
1 sentence2020However, where the defense, at the time of the preliminary hearing, was denied access ____________________________________________ 7 “A ruling on a motion in limine on record is sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal, without renewal of the objection or offer at trial.” Trach v. Fellin, 817 A.2d 1102 , 1107 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc). -5- J-A03012-20 to vital impeachment evidence, a full and fair opportunity to cross- examine the unavailable witness may be deemed to have been lacking at the preliminary hearing. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Stays
green
2 sentences2018Therefore, the prior inconsistent police statement was properly admitted at the preliminary hearing, even though Stays did not choose to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing, because “Stays was offered the opportunity at the preliminary hearing to cross-examine [the witness] about the original statement and the photo array identification, as well as [the witness’s] attempted recantation.” Id. 2018Further, this Court held that the proper introduction of the police statement at the preliminary hearing under Pa.R.E. 803.1 rendered it in effect part of the preliminary hearing testimony itself, thus making the statement “subsequently admissible at trial pursuant to Rule 804(b).”3 Id. at 1261-62 . ____________________________________________ 3Pursuant to Pa.R.E. 804, former testimony is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness if the testimony was given at a trial, hearing, or deposition, and is offered against a party who had “an opportunity and | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Fox
green
2 sentences1993Id. at 233-36 , 619 A.2d at 332-333 . 1993Id. at 233-36 , 619 A.2d at 332-333 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Commonwealth v. Bone
neutral
1 sentence1928Beliance is based upon the case of Com. v. Bone, 64 Pa. Superior Ct. 44 , where it was held to be error “to admit a transcript of the testimony of a witness at the preliminary hearing of the defendant before a justice of the peace, but absent at the trial, where it appears that the stenographer who took the testimony was merely a 'public stenographer’ and not an official court stenographer, and there is no offer to prove either the qualifications or the ability of the stenographer.” That case does not govern this. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.