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.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2018–2025 6 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. Servichgreen1 sentence2025Indeed, the trial court has “broad discretion in choosing an appropriate remedy[.]” Commonwealth v. Servich, 602 A.2d 1338, 1343 (Pa. Super. 1992) (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Poindextergreen1 sentence2025The rule “clearly enables the trial court to take whatever action is within the interests of justice, when no notice is properly provided as to the alibi defense.” Id. at 1221 (affirming denial of an alibi jury instruction following the defendant’s failure to provide the required notice). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Naumangreen1 sentence2023Commonwealth y_ v. Nauman, 498 A.2d 913, 916 (Pa. Super. 1985). | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2022Appellant’s Brief at 3. “[A]n appellate court reviews the PCRA court’s findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by the record, and reviews its conclusions of law to determine whether they are free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294, 311 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Roxberrygreen1 sentence2021Accord Commonwealth v. Roxberry, 602 A.2d 826, 828 (Pa. 1992) (holding counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the absence of an alibi jury instruction upon rejecting the Commonwealth’s argument that the defendant’s alibi testimony was not corroborated, stating “[b]ecause credibility is indisputably the exclusive province of the jury, we cannot properly permit a judge, under the guise of exercising discretion, to remove the alibi issue from the jury merely because the judge finds the evidence incredible”); Commonwealth v. Weber, 189 A.3d 1016, 1026 (Pa.Super. 2018) (holding that trial | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Webergreen1 sentence2021Accord Commonwealth v. Roxberry, 602 A.2d 826, 828 (Pa. 1992) (holding counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the absence of an alibi jury instruction upon rejecting the Commonwealth’s argument that the defendant’s alibi testimony was not corroborated, stating “[b]ecause credibility is indisputably the exclusive province of the jury, we cannot properly permit a judge, under the guise of exercising discretion, to remove the alibi issue from the jury merely because the judge finds the evidence incredible”); Commonwealth v. Weber, 189 A.3d 1016, 1026 (Pa.Super. 2018) (holding that trial | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Raineygreen1 sentence2018Appellant relies on three cases that speak to the general proposition that “an alibi is a defense that places the defendant at the relevant time in a different place than the scene involved and so removed therefrom as to render it impossible for him to be the guilty party,” and that “the burden is solely on the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant was present during the commission of the crime.” Id. at 8.4 ____________________________________________ 4 Appellant cites the following cases: Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215, 234 (Pa. 2007); Commonwealth v. Gainer, 580 A.2d 333, 336 (Footn | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Gainergreen1 sentence2018Appellant relies on three cases that speak to the general proposition that “an alibi is a defense that places the defendant at the relevant time in a different place than the scene involved and so removed therefrom as to render it impossible for him to be the guilty party,” and that “the burden is solely on the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant was present during the commission of the crime.” Id. at 8.4 ____________________________________________ 4 Appellant cites the following cases: Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215, 234 (Pa. 2007); Commonwealth v. Gainer, 580 A.2d 333, 336 (Footn | 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. Mikell
green
1 sentence2021Mikell, 729 A.2d at 570-71 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Bonomo
green
1 sentence2021Relying upon Commonwealth v. Bonomo, 151 A.2d 441 (Pa. 1959), Appellant ____________________________________________ 11 Throughout his argument, Appellant also maintains Attorney Gross was ineffective for failing to file a notice of alibi. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.