statements defense in Pennsylvania

2013Id. at 460 , 480 A.2d at 990 .

2013Id. at 460 , 480 A.2d at 990 .

2020See McKenzie v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 963 A.2d 616, 620-21 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009); Prebella v. Board of Probation and Parole, 942 A.2d 257 , 260- 61 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008); see also Sanders v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 958 A.2d 582, 586 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).

2019Compare Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), 8/14/2018, at 1 (unnumbered) with Appellants’ Brief; Milby, 189 A.3d at 1079 . - 13 -

2019Therefore, Appellant has failed to establish that he suffered prejudice due to the Commonwealth's failure to provide the statements to the defense in advance. 16 See Roney , 79 A.3d at 607 . (b) Repressed Memory Therapy Appellant maintains that the prosecution withheld evidence that several of the victims underwent repressed memory therapy prior to trial.

2009An improper reference to a defendant’s failure to testify is harmless if the Commonwealth establishes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that “the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.” Trivigno, supra at 250 , 750 A.2d at 246 (quoting Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 533 Pa. 555, 560 , 626 A.2d 141, 144 (1993)).

2003Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, 519 Pa. 236 , 546 A.2d 1101, 1109 (1988). [25] For the purposes of our discussion, we refer to the witness as Mr. Banachowski and not Mr. Wolchanski. [26] "[I]n order to evaluate whether the comments were improper, we do not look at the comments in a vacuum; rather we must look at them in the context in which they were made." Commonwealth v. Weiss, 565 Pa. 504 , 776 A.2d 958, 968 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1101 , 122 S.Ct. 2303 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1059 (2002). [27] The Commonwealth relies on cases in which courts have been called upon to determine whether the presenta

2003Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, 519 Pa. 236 , 546 A.2d 1101, 1109 (1988). [25] For the purposes of our discussion, we refer to the witness as Mr. Banachowski and not Mr. Wolchanski. [26] "[I]n order to evaluate whether the comments were improper, we do not look at the comments in a vacuum; rather we must look at them in the context in which they were made." Commonwealth v. Weiss, 565 Pa. 504 , 776 A.2d 958, 968 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1101 , 122 S.Ct. 2303 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1059 (2002). [27] The Commonwealth relies on cases in which courts have been called upon to determine whether the presenta

2003Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, 519 Pa. 236 , 546 A.2d 1101, 1109 (1988). [25] For the purposes of our discussion, we refer to the witness as Mr. Banachowski and not Mr. Wolchanski. [26] "[I]n order to evaluate whether the comments were improper, we do not look at the comments in a vacuum; rather we must look at them in the context in which they were made." Commonwealth v. Weiss, 565 Pa. 504 , 776 A.2d 958, 968 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1101 , 122 S.Ct. 2303 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1059 (2002). [27] The Commonwealth relies on cases in which courts have been called upon to determine whether the presenta

2000See also Commonwealth v. Clark, supra, (holding that prosecutor’s comment that defendant failed to show remorse was in fair response to defense closing argument); Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 553 Pa. 485 , 720 A.2d 79, 116 (1998); 4 Commonwealth v. Rhone, 422 Pa.Super. 521 , 619 A.2d 1080 , alloc, denied, 534 Pa. 653 , 627 A.2d 731 (1993). 5 When we apply these rules of law to the facts of this case, we find that the remark at issue was in fair response to the statements of defense counsel and was not intended to create an adverse inference pertaining to the failure of Trivigno to testify.

2000See also Commonwealth v. Clark, supra, (holding that prosecutor’s comment that defendant failed to show remorse was in fair response to defense closing argument); Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 553 Pa. 485 , 720 A.2d 79, 116 (1998); 4 Commonwealth v. Rhone, 422 Pa.Super. 521 , 619 A.2d 1080 , alloc, denied, 534 Pa. 653 , 627 A.2d 731 (1993). 5 When we apply these rules of law to the facts of this case, we find that the remark at issue was in fair response to the statements of defense counsel and was not intended to create an adverse inference pertaining to the failure of Trivigno to testify.

2000Trivigno does not contend otherwise, but cites to Commonwealth v. Edwards, 535 Pa. 575 , 637 A.2d 259 (1993), apparently arguing that any comment that refers to the defendant’s failure to testify is per se reversible error.

2000Trivigno does not contend otherwise, but cites to Commonwealth v. Edwards, 535 Pa. 575 , 637 A.2d 259 (1993), apparently arguing that any comment that refers to the defendant’s failure to testify is per se reversible error.

1943The statements of claim further allege that Beacom and Cope, Kurtz’ co-trustees, had failed, over this period of time, to call in and collect the payments due the association, but had permitted Kurtz to do so individually, thereby making it possible for him to embezzle part of the proceeds, and that they had neglected to make a comparison between the records kept by Kurtz of his collections, and the deposit statements of their trustees’ bank account, which would have disclosed the shortage, all of which, it is alleged, amounted to a failure on their part in the faithful performance of their du

1941One of the best statements of the rule appears in Danville Bridge Co. v. Pomroy, 15 Pa. 151 . 2 It is equally well settled that to entitle a plaintiff to the benefit of the rule, it must be shown that his failure to completely perform was not wilful or *608 tainted with bad faith.

1941Smyers v. Zmitrovitch, 55 Pa. Superior Ct. 440 ; Insley v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co., 334 Pa. 368 , 5 A. (2d) 544.

1941Smyers v. Zmitrovitch, 55 Pa. Superior Ct. 440 ; Insley v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co., 334 Pa. 368 , 5 A. (2d) 544.

1936Co., 229 Mass. 532 (2% inches between planking and rail). 3 It is true that in a subsequent part of its opinion tbe court states: “And further, from an examination of the record, we feel that testimony relative to the condition of the rails of the defendant company at the point this accident occurred, which was not strictly admissible under the pleadings, was permitted to go to the jury.” We have already discussed this matter, however, and have pointed out that the amendment had properly become a part of the statements of claim and therefore the evidence here referred to was admissible.

1935In the second place, the statements of claim did not set forth the necessary averments required to be made in an action by a withdrawing stockholder since the decision of the Supreme *325 Court in Brown v. Victor Building Assn., 302 Pa. 254 , 153 A. 349 .

1935In the second place, the statements of claim did not set forth the necessary averments required to be made in an action by a withdrawing stockholder since the decision of the Supreme *325 Court in Brown v. Victor Building Assn., 302 Pa. 254 , 153 A. 349 .

1922See Buehler v. U. S. Fashion Plate Co., 269 Pa. 428 ; Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Hanseom Bros., 273 Pa. 98 ; Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Oliver Coal Co., 259 Pa. 290 .

1922See Buehler v. U. S. Fashion Plate Co., 269 Pa. 428 ; Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Hanseom Bros., 273 Pa. 98 ; Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Oliver Coal Co., 259 Pa. 290 .

1903When the claim is filed against a dwelling house, the plaintiff’s right to recover is not sustained by evidence that the material was. furnished for the erection of a fence, outhouse or stable, not erected under the same contract and not mentioned in the claim as filed: Bevan v. Thackara, 143 Pa. 182 .