seriousness violation in Pennsylvania

2023See Pa.R.A.P.. 302(x), Even if there had been aviolation of asequestration order, the remedy for aviolation of a sequestration order is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and in exercising its discretion, the court considers the seriousness of the violation, its impact on the testimony of the witness, and its probable impact on the outcome of the trial, Rose, 172 A.3d at 1131 (citing Connnonwealth v. Smith, 346 A.2d 757, 760 (Pa. 1975)).

1983Compare: Commonwealth v. Smith, 464 Pa. 314, 320-321 , 346 A.2d 757, 760 (1975) (Remedy for violation of sequestration order is within the sound discretion of the trial court, which should consider the seriousness of the violation and its impact on the testimony of the witnesses and the outcome of the trial); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 273 Pa.Super. 14, 18 , 416 A.2d 1065, 1067 (1979) (Selection of a remedy for the violation of a sequestration order is in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof).

2025“In exercising its discretion, the trial court should consider the seriousness of the violation, its impact on the testimony of the witness, and its probable impact on the outcome of the trial.” Id. (citation omitted).

2023“In exercising its discretion, the trial court should consider the seriousness of the violation, its impact on the testimony of the witness, and its probable impact on the outcome of the trial.” Id. (cleaned up).

2015Schwartz, 615 A.2d at 357 (internal citations omitted) (numbering added).

2015In deciding whether to allow a witness who violates a sequestration order to testify, the trial court should consider the seriousness of the violation, its impact on the testimony of the witness, the probable impact on the outcome of the trial, whether the witness intentionally disobeyed the order, and whether the party calling the witness procured the disobedience. -5- J-A16007-15 Commonwealth v. Schwartz, 615 A.2d 350, 357 (Pa. Super. 1992), appeal denied, 629 A.2d 1379 (Pa. 1993) (citing Commonwealth v. Stinnett, 514 A.2d 154 (Pa. Super. 1986).

2023“In exercising its discretion, the trial court should consider (1) the seriousness of the violation, (2) its impact on the testimony of the witness and, (3) its probable impact on the outcome of the trial.” Commonwealth v. Mokluk, 444 A.2d 1214, 1216 (Pa. Super. 1982).

2016Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Mokluk, 298 Pa.Super. 360 , 444 A.2d 1214 (1982)).

2026This Court has also held “an averment that the court sentenced based solely on the seriousness of the offense and failed to consider all relevant factors raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Bricker, 41 A.3d 872, 875 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 776 (Pa. Super. 2009)); see also Commonwealth v. Knox, 165 A.3d 925, 929 (Pa. Super. 2017) (concluding an appellant’s “claim that the trial court focused exclusively on the seriousness of the crime while ignoring other, mitigating circumstances, such as his mental health history and difficult childhood, ra

2026This Court has also held “an averment that the court sentenced based solely on the seriousness of the offense and failed to consider all relevant factors raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Bricker, 41 A.3d 872, 875 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 776 (Pa. Super. 2009)); see also Commonwealth v. Knox, 165 A.3d 925, 929 (Pa. Super. 2017) (concluding an appellant’s “claim that the trial court focused exclusively on the seriousness of the crime while ignoring other, mitigating circumstances, such as his mental health history and difficult childhood, ra

2026In his Rule 2119(f) statement, Appellant alleges a substantial question is raised as the trial court “failed to consider his personal history, character, and treatment and rehabilitation, as well as imposed sentence based solely on the seriousness of his violation conduct, in violation of Section 9721(b).” Appellant’s Brief at 19. -5- J-S11039-26 This Court has held a claim that a sentencing court “sentenced a defendant without taking into account his or her character and background … raises a substantial question that the sentence is inappropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. L

2026This Court has also held “an averment that the court sentenced based solely on the seriousness of the offense and failed to consider all relevant factors raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Bricker, 41 A.3d 872, 875 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 776 (Pa. Super. 2009)); see also Commonwealth v. Knox, 165 A.3d 925, 929 (Pa. Super. 2017) (concluding an appellant’s “claim that the trial court focused exclusively on the seriousness of the crime while ignoring other, mitigating circumstances, such as his mental health history and difficult childhood, ra

2015Further, “[i]f a violation of a sequestration order is found, the remedy is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court, and it is within the sound discretion of the trial court whether to allow the witness to testify with proper cautionary instruction.” Commonwealth v. Marinelli, 690 A.2d 203, 219 (Pa. 1997).

2015By contrast, a proper exercise of discretion conforms to the law and is based on the facts of record.” Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 107 A.3d 206, 213 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Street, 69 A.3d 628, 633 (Pa. Super. 2013)). -7- J-S19011-15 In deciding whether to allow a witness who violates a sequestration order to testify, the trial court should consider (1) the seriousness of the violation, (2) its impact on the testimony of the witness, the probable impact on the outcome of the trial, (3) whether the witness intentionally disobeyed the order, and (4) whether the party calling the

2015By contrast, a proper exercise of discretion conforms to the law and is based on the facts of record.” Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 107 A.3d 206, 213 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Street, 69 A.3d 628, 633 (Pa. Super. 2013)). -7- J-S19011-15 In deciding whether to allow a witness who violates a sequestration order to testify, the trial court should consider (1) the seriousness of the violation, (2) its impact on the testimony of the witness, the probable impact on the outcome of the trial, (3) whether the witness intentionally disobeyed the order, and (4) whether the party calling the

1983Compare: Commonwealth v. Smith, 464 Pa. 314, 320-321 , 346 A.2d 757, 760 (1975) (Remedy for violation of sequestration order is within the sound discretion of the trial court, which should consider the seriousness of the violation and its impact on the testimony of the witnesses and the outcome of the trial); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 273 Pa.Super. 14, 18 , 416 A.2d 1065, 1067 (1979) (Selection of a remedy for the violation of a sequestration order is in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof).

1983Compare: Commonwealth v. Smith, 464 Pa. 314, 320-321 , 346 A.2d 757, 760 (1975) (Remedy for violation of sequestration order is within the sound discretion of the trial court, which should consider the seriousness of the violation and its impact on the testimony of the witnesses and the outcome of the trial); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 273 Pa.Super. 14, 18 , 416 A.2d 1065, 1067 (1979) (Selection of a remedy for the violation of a sequestration order is in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed absent an abuse thereof).