limiting jury instruction in Pennsylvania

2023See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Tedford, [] 960 A.2d 1, 37 ([Pa.] 2008) (recognizing that when evidence of a defendant’s other crimes is admitted for a relevant purpose under Rule 404(b), the defendant is entitled upon request to a limiting jury instruction, which the law presumes the jury will follow).

2023It noted that when evidence of a defendant’s prior crimes is admissible for a relevant purpose, as in a Section 6105 prosecution, “the defendant is entitled upon request to a limiting jury instruction, which the law presumes the jury will follow.” Id. at 1263 (citing Tedford, 960 A.2d at 37 ) (emphasis added).

2022Finally, the trial court balanced the probative value of the evidence against its prejudice, opining that a limiting jury instruction could minimize any potential prejudice that resulted.6 See Commonwealth v. May, 656 A.2d 1335, 1341 (Pa. 1995) (“[A]lthough the evidence of [the prior bad acts at issue] was undoubtedly of a prejudicial ____________________________________________ 6 Notably, Appellant elected not to request an instruction limiting the jury’s use of this evidence.

2020See Sandusky, 203 A.3d at 1043-44 ; Smith, 121 A.3d at 1052 .

2015“It is well settled that in reviewing an order to grant a new trial our standard of review is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” Neison v. Hines, 539 Pa. 516 , 653 A.2d 634, 636 (Pa. 1995) ….

2015“It is well settled that in reviewing an order to grant a new trial our standard of review is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” Neison v. Hines, 539 Pa. 516 , 653 A.2d 634, 636 (Pa. 1995) ….

2013While defendants would have been entitled to a limiting instruction informing the jury of the purpose for which the evidence could be considered, 6 “[they] failed to request a limiting jury instruction, and, therefore, [they] will not now be heard to complain regarding the jury’s consideration of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 878 A.2d 914, 923 (Pa. Super. 2005). 2.

2005(T.P. 1/21/04, pp. 6-8, 15-19, 21-28.) Since a defendant is entitled to a limiting jury instruction prior to the admission of such evidence, see Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 571 Pa. 45, 54 , 811 A.2d 556, 561-62 (2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 858 (2003), the jury was advised at trial that the challenged evidence was being offered only to prove the intent element of PWID and could not be considered “to show the character of the [defendant] or to show that he acted in conformity with that character.” (T.P. 1/22/04, pp. 54-56.) Prior to trial, the defendant indicated his intention to call Ms. Bass

2005(T.P. 1/21/04, pp. 6-8, 15-19, 21-28.) Since a defendant is entitled to a limiting jury instruction prior to the admission of such evidence, see Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 571 Pa. 45, 54 , 811 A.2d 556, 561-62 (2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 858 (2003), the jury was advised at trial that the challenged evidence was being offered only to prove the intent element of PWID and could not be considered “to show the character of the [defendant] or to show that he acted in conformity with that character.” (T.P. 1/22/04, pp. 54-56.) Prior to trial, the defendant indicated his intention to call Ms. Bass

2004See Stevens, 739 A.2d at 512 (noting that prejudice exists where petitioner shows a “reasonable probability that, but for the error of counsel, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.”).