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.
9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2025 2 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. Smithgreen2 sentences2025“In determining whether the evidence is so remote that the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value, the court has no fixed standard on which to rely, but must instead consider the nature of the crime, the evidence being offered, and all attendant circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 808 A.2d 215, 225 (Pa. Super. 2002). 2024See also Commonwealth v. Knowles, 637 A.2d 331, 333 (Pa.Super. 1994) (stating, “Whether evidence is too remote in time to be probative … is largely within the discretion of the trial court”); Commonwealth v. Smith, 808 A.2d 215, 225 (Pa.Super. 2002) (stating, “In determining whether the evidence is so remote that the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value, the court has no fixed standard on which to rely, but must instead consider the nature of the crime, the evidence being offered, and all attendant circumstances”). | 4 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Ulatoskigreen2 sentences2020See Commonwealth v. Smith, 808 A.2d 215, 225 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“In determining whether the evidence is so remote that the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value, the court has no fixed standard on which to rely, but must instead consider the nature of the crime, the evidence being offered, and all attendant circumstances.”) Pennsylvania Courts have specifically addressed the admission of evidence of the prior marital relationship between a defendant and a homicide victim in conjunction with remoteness: “[E]vidence concerning the nature of the marital relationship is admissible for t 2020See Commonwealth v. Smith, 808 A.2d 215, 225 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“In determining whether the evidence is so remote that the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value, the court has no fixed standard on which to rely, but must instead consider the nature of the crime, the evidence being offered, and all attendant circumstances.”) Pennsylvania Courts have specifically addressed the admission of evidence of the prior marital relationship between a defendant and a homicide victim in conjunction with remoteness: “[E]vidence concerning the nature of the marital relationship is admissible for t | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2002“In determining whether the evidence is so remote that the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value, the court has no fixed standard on which to rely, but must instead consider the nature of the crime, the evidence being offered, and all attendant circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Clark, 280 Pa.Super. 1 , 421 A.2d 374, 376 (1980), affirmed, 461 A.2d 794 (Pa.1983). ¶ 22 In the case sub judice, Appellant testified on her own behalf and stated that she had no recollection of her whereabouts or actions prior to the collision or even of the collision itself. 2002“In determining whether the evidence is so remote that the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value, the court has no fixed standard on which to rely, but must instead consider the nature of the crime, the evidence being offered, and all attendant circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Clark, 280 Pa.Super. 1 , 421 A.2d 374, 376 (1980), affirmed, 461 A.2d 794 (Pa.1983). ¶ 22 In the case sub judice, Appellant testified on her own behalf and stated that she had no recollection of her whereabouts or actions prior to the collision or even of the collision itself. | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Knowlesgreen1 sentence2024See also Commonwealth v. Knowles, 637 A.2d 331, 333 (Pa.Super. 1994) (stating, “Whether evidence is too remote in time to be probative … is largely within the discretion of the trial court”); Commonwealth v. Smith, 808 A.2d 215, 225 (Pa.Super. 2002) (stating, “In determining whether the evidence is so remote that the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value, the court has no fixed standard on which to rely, but must instead consider the nature of the crime, the evidence being offered, and all attendant circumstances”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Kinnard
green
2 sentences1994As stated in Commonwealth v. Clark, 280 Pa. Super. 1 , 421 A.2d 374 (1980), “[i]n determining whether evidence is so remote that the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value, the court has no fixed standard on which to rely, but must instead consider the nature of the crime, the evidence being offered, and all attendant circumstances.” Id. at 7 , 421 A.2d at 376 , citing Commonwealth v. Kinnard, 230 Pa. Super. 134 , 326 A.2d 541 (1974). 1994As stated in Commonwealth v. Clark, 280 Pa. Super. 1 , 421 A.2d 374 (1980), “[i]n determining whether evidence is so remote that the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value, the court has no fixed standard on which to rely, but must instead consider the nature of the crime, the evidence being offered, and all attendant circumstances.” Id. at 7 , 421 A.2d at 376 , citing Commonwealth v. Kinnard, 230 Pa. Super. 134 , 326 A.2d 541 (1974). | 4 | 1981–1994 |
Com. v. Clark
green
1 sentence2002“In determining whether the evidence is so remote that the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value, the court has no fixed standard on which to rely, but must instead consider the nature of the crime, the evidence being offered, and all attendant circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Clark, 280 Pa.Super. 1 , 421 A.2d 374, 376 (1980), affirmed, 461 A.2d 794 (Pa.1983). ¶ 22 In the case sub judice, Appellant testified on her own behalf and stated that she had no recollection of her whereabouts or actions prior to the collision or even of the collision itself. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.