propriety inquiry in Pennsylvania

2025Here, the Commonwealth offered to the trial court the only argument relevant to the proffered inquiry, and it was in opposition to its propriety.18 17People v. Maguire, 956 N.Y.S.2d 635 , 638 (N.Y. 2012); State v. Good, 43 P.3d 948, 956 (Mont. 2002); State v. Reed, 8 P.3d 1025, 1028 (Utah 2000); Tran v. State, 221 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. App. 2005). 18 Notably, in its reply brief before this Court, the Commonwealth does not engage with Smith’s argument in support of the likelihood of a bias in favor of child abuse witnesses.

2025Here, the Commonwealth offered to the trial court the only argument relevant to the proffered inquiry, and it was in opposition to its propriety.18 17People v. Maguire, 956 N.Y.S.2d 635 , 638 (N.Y. 2012); State v. Good, 43 P.3d 948, 956 (Mont. 2002); State v. Reed, 8 P.3d 1025, 1028 (Utah 2000); Tran v. State, 221 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. App. 2005). 18 Notably, in its reply brief before this Court, the Commonwealth does not engage with Smith’s argument in support of the likelihood of a bias in favor of child abuse witnesses.

2025Here, the Commonwealth offered to the trial court the only argument relevant to the proffered inquiry, and it was in opposition to its propriety.18 17People v. Maguire, 956 N.Y.S.2d 635 , 638 (N.Y. 2012); State v. Good, 43 P.3d 948, 956 (Mont. 2002); State v. Reed, 8 P.3d 1025, 1028 (Utah 2000); Tran v. State, 221 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. App. 2005). 18 Notably, in its reply brief before this Court, the Commonwealth does not engage with Smith’s argument in support of the likelihood of a bias in favor of child abuse witnesses.

2025Here, the Commonwealth offered to the trial court the only argument relevant to the proffered inquiry, and it was in opposition to its propriety.18 17People v. Maguire, 956 N.Y.S.2d 635 , 638 (N.Y. 2012); State v. Good, 43 P.3d 948, 956 (Mont. 2002); State v. Reed, 8 P.3d 1025, 1028 (Utah 2000); Tran v. State, 221 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. App. 2005). 18 Notably, in its reply brief before this Court, the Commonwealth does not engage with Smith’s argument in support of the likelihood of a bias in favor of child abuse witnesses.

2025Here, the Commonwealth offered to the trial court the only argument relevant to the proffered inquiry, and it was in opposition to its propriety.18 17People v. Maguire, 956 N.Y.S.2d 635 , 638 (N.Y. 2012); State v. Good, 43 P.3d 948, 956 (Mont. 2002); State v. Reed, 8 P.3d 1025, 1028 (Utah 2000); Tran v. State, 221 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. App. 2005). 18 Notably, in its reply brief before this Court, the Commonwealth does not engage with Smith’s argument in support of the likelihood of a bias in favor of child abuse witnesses.

2025Here, the Commonwealth offered to the trial court the only argument relevant to the proffered inquiry, and it was in opposition to its propriety.18 17People v. Maguire, 956 N.Y.S.2d 635 , 638 (N.Y. 2012); State v. Good, 43 P.3d 948, 956 (Mont. 2002); State v. Reed, 8 P.3d 1025, 1028 (Utah 2000); Tran v. State, 221 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. App. 2005). 18 Notably, in its reply brief before this Court, the Commonwealth does not engage with Smith’s argument in support of the likelihood of a bias in favor of child abuse witnesses.

2022See Whalen, 32 A.3d at 678-79. -2- J-E01003-22 Although the Majority summarizes Chichkin, it fails to address Chichkin’s ultimate determination that Section 3806 violates the holding of Alleyne — “[a]ny fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime is an ‘element’ that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.” Alleyne, 570 U.S. at 103.

2022See Whalen, 32 A.3d at 678-79. -2- J-E01004-22 Although the Majority summarizes Chichkin, it fails to address Chichkin’s ultimate determination that Section 3806 violates the holding of Alleyne — “[a]ny fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime is an ‘element’ that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.” Alleyne, 570 U.S. at 103.

2022See Whalen, 32 A.3d at 678-79. -2- J-E01003-22 Although the Majority summarizes Chichkin, it fails to address Chichkin’s ultimate determination that Section 3806 violates the holding of Alleyne — “[a]ny fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime is an ‘element’ that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.” Alleyne, 570 U.S. at 103.

2022See Whalen, 32 A.3d at 678-79. -2- J-E01004-22 Although the Majority summarizes Chichkin, it fails to address Chichkin’s ultimate determination that Section 3806 violates the holding of Alleyne — “[a]ny fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime is an ‘element’ that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.” Alleyne, 570 U.S. at 103.

2025See Ignatavich, 482 A.2d at 1084 (explaining that Ignatavich’s statement that he hid due to fear of retaliation by the victim’s family “did not remove the propriety of an instruction regarding flight and concealment,” and his “conduct ... together with [his] explanation therefor, were properly submitted to the jury” for their assessment).

2021The Commonwealth reiterates that, in its view, Selenski provides the appropriate framework for this case. [J-102-2020] - 20 diligence must be proven by the Commonwealth, and assessed by the court, before ‘judicial delay’ becomes a consideration in the time calculation for Rule 600,” Mills, 162 A.3d at 326 (Wecht, J., concurring) — the briefs submitted below reveal that Appellant indeed argued that the Commonwealth must prove its due diligence even if delay is attributable to the trial court’s schedule, see Appellant’s Brief in Harth, 683 EDA 2017, at 22-26; Appellant’s Reply Brief in Harth, 68

2017See also In re Hyman, 811 A.2d 605, 607-608 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“Any person interested in the alleged incapacitated person’s welfare may petition the court for a judicial determination that the person is indeed incapacitated and for the appointment of a guardian.”).

2017See Commonwealth v. Woodard, 634 Pa. 162, 199-200 , 129 A.3d 480, 502 (2015), citing Wirth v. Commonwealth, 626 Pa. 124 , 95 A.3d 822, 837 (2014) (where appellate brief fails to develop issue in meaningful fashion capable of review, claim is waived); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (appellate briefs must contain “such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent”), Even if appellant did not default on the underlying claim regarding the propriety of the instruction, his claim of ineffectiveness relies on conclusory arguments regarding counsel’s failure to object.

2017See Commonwealth v. Woodard, 634 Pa. 162, 199-200 , 129 A.3d 480, 502 (2015), citing Wirth v. Commonwealth, 626 Pa. 124 , 95 A.3d 822, 837 (2014) (where appellate brief fails to develop issue in meaningful fashion capable of review, claim is waived); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (appellate briefs must contain “such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent”), Even if appellant did not default on the underlying claim regarding the propriety of the instruction, his claim of ineffectiveness relies on conclusory arguments regarding counsel’s failure to object.

2017See Commonwealth v. Woodard, 634 Pa. 162, 199-200 , 129 A.3d 480, 502 (2015), citing Wirth v. Commonwealth, 626 Pa. 124 , 95 A.3d 822, 837 (2014) (where appellate brief fails to develop issue in meaningful fashion capable of review, claim is waived); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (appellate briefs must contain “such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent”), Even if appellant did not default on the underlying claim regarding the propriety of the instruction, his claim of ineffectiveness relies on conclusory arguments regarding counsel’s failure to object.

2017See Commonwealth v. Woodard, 634 Pa. 162, 199-200 , 129 A.3d 480, 502 (2015), citing Wirth v. Commonwealth, 626 Pa. 124 , 95 A.3d 822, 837 (2014) (where appellate brief fails to develop issue in meaningful fashion capable of review, claim is waived); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (appellate briefs must contain “such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent”), Even if appellant did not default on the underlying claim regarding the propriety of the instruction, his claim of ineffectiveness relies on conclusory arguments regarding counsel’s failure to object.

2014That court then asserted that after its review of the record, it had come to the conclusion that the jury charge was “clear, accurate, and more than adequate.” Blicha v. Jacks, 864 A.2d 1214, 1219-20 (Pa.Super.2004). 6 Blair Medical next asserts that in Prin-gle, the Superior Court had a valid reason for determining that the trial court’s particular jury instruction in that case would have been confusing for a jury, thus providing a basis for rejecting — in that case— the propriety of an error in judgment instruction.

2013See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 583 Pa. 170 , 876 A.2d 916, 934 (2005).

2013See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 583 Pa. 170 , 876 A.2d 916, 934 (2005).

2006Keefer v. Byers, 398 Pa. 447 , 159 A.2d 477 (1960) (holding that the failure to object to the lack of jury instructions constitutes waiver of the claim). [1] The Majority contradicts itself by disagreeing with this point, see Majority op. at ___- ___ n. 11, 896 A.2d at 1185 n. 11, and then recognizing the propriety of the inquiry in text, as it cites with approval to the Chief Justice's Concurring Opinion.

2006See Majority op. at ___-___, 896 A.2d at 1185. [2] The need to consider closely the proper role of new technological advancements in the courtroom is something I view as prudence, and not "technophobia." Not all technology makes trials more efficient and, where the parties lack equal access to the technology, prudence is certainly warranted.

2001I would thus be constrained to turn to the merits of the propriety of the defense in this particular action, as did the Majority. ¶ 5 Our Supreme Court has recognized that the former Act of May 10, 1927, 68 P.S. § 501, see now 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3507, "is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed." Lykiardopoulos v. Lykiardopoulos, 453 Pa. 290 , 309 A.2d 548, 551 (1973).

2001I would thus be constrained to turn to the merits of the propriety of the defense in this particular action, as did the Majority. ¶ 5 Our Supreme Court has recognized that the former Act of May 10, 1927, 68 P.S. § 501, see now 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3507, "is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed." Lykiardopoulos v. Lykiardopoulos, 453 Pa. 290 , 309 A.2d 548, 551 (1973).

1996Commonwealth v. Murchison, 418 Mass. 58, 59 , 634 N.E.2d 561, 562 (1994).

1996Commonwealth v. Murchison, 418 Mass. 58, 59 , 634 N.E.2d 561, 562 (1994).

1988As we have said “the reasons why certain evidence which might naturally be looked for, may not be produced, are so many and so various, that the inference to be drawn from failure to produce requires careful handling____ But it is a legitimate instrument in the investigation of truth and a liberal discretion in its use must be allowed the trial judge.” Commonwealth v. Trignani, 185 Pa.Super. 332, 341 , 138 A.2d 215, 219-220 (1958).

1988As we have said “the reasons why certain evidence which might naturally be looked for, may not be produced, are so many and so various, that the inference to be drawn from failure to produce requires careful handling____ But it is a legitimate instrument in the investigation of truth and a liberal discretion in its use must be allowed the trial judge.” Commonwealth v. Trignani, 185 Pa.Super. 332, 341 , 138 A.2d 215, 219-220 (1958).

1983See Commonwealth v. Lutz, 492 Pa. 500 , 424 A.2d 1302 (1981); Commonwealth v. Ford, 491 Pa. 586 , 421 A.2d 1040 (1980); see also Commonwealth v. Sweitzer, 261 Pa.Super. 183 , 395 A.2d 1376 (1978).

1983See Commonwealth v. Lutz, 492 Pa. 500 , 424 A.2d 1302 (1981); Commonwealth v. Ford, 491 Pa. 586 , 421 A.2d 1040 (1980); see also Commonwealth v. Sweitzer, 261 Pa.Super. 183 , 395 A.2d 1376 (1978).

1983See Commonwealth v. Lutz, 492 Pa. 500 , 424 A.2d 1302 (1981); Commonwealth v. Ford, 491 Pa. 586 , 421 A.2d 1040 (1980); see also Commonwealth v. Sweitzer, 261 Pa.Super. 183 , 395 A.2d 1376 (1978).

1983See Commonwealth v. Lutz, 492 Pa. 500 , 424 A.2d 1302 (1981); Commonwealth v. Ford, 491 Pa. 586 , 421 A.2d 1040 (1980); see also Commonwealth v. Sweitzer, 261 Pa.Super. 183 , 395 A.2d 1376 (1978).