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 2 courts 2006–2018 0 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. Hutchinsongreen2 sentences2007See also Hutchinson, 811 A.2d at 564-65 ; Commonwealth v. Laich, 566 Pa. 19 , 777 A.2d 1057, 1067-69 (2001) (Castille, J., concurring). 2007See also Hutchinson, 811 A.2d at 564-65 ; Commonwealth v. Laich, 566 Pa. 19 , 777 A.2d 1057, 1067-69 (2001) (Castille, J., concurring). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Laichgreen2 sentences2007See also Hutchinson, 811 A.2d at 564-65 ; Commonwealth v. Laich, 566 Pa. 19 , 777 A.2d 1057, 1067-69 (2001) (Castille, J., concurring). 2007See also Hutchinson, 811 A.2d at 564-65 ; Commonwealth v. Laich, 566 Pa. 19 , 777 A.2d 1057, 1067-69 (2001) (Castille, J., concurring). | 2 | 2 |
Giles v. Californiagreen2 sentences2018King, 959 A.2d at 415-16 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citing Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2682-83 (2008), which “recogniz[ed] the limited applicability of the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, [and] … reaffirmed its commitment to the long-held - 15 - J-A04040-18 principle that a defendant forfeits his confrontation rights when he intentionally procures the unavailability of a witness … [which] represents a codification of the common-law forfeiture rule…”); see also U.S. v. White, 116 F.3d 903, 911 (D.C. 2016Appellants’ Brief at 17-18.1 Appellant does not address the relevance, probative value, or potential unfair prejudice of any specific evidence. ____________________________________________ 1 The Commonwealth argues the victim’s statements were admissible under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, citing Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008). | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Kinggreen1 sentence2018King, 959 A.2d at 415-16 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citing Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2682-83 (2008), which “recogniz[ed] the limited applicability of the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, [and] … reaffirmed its commitment to the long-held - 15 - J-A04040-18 principle that a defendant forfeits his confrontation rights when he intentionally procures the unavailability of a witness … [which] represents a codification of the common-law forfeiture rule…”); see also U.S. v. White, 116 F.3d 903, 911 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Antone R. White, A/K/A Tonegreen1 sentence2018King, 959 A.2d at 415-16 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citing Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2682-83 (2008), which “recogniz[ed] the limited applicability of the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, [and] … reaffirmed its commitment to the long-held - 15 - J-A04040-18 principle that a defendant forfeits his confrontation rights when he intentionally procures the unavailability of a witness … [which] represents a codification of the common-law forfeiture rule…”); see also U.S. v. White, 116 F.3d 903, 911 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2013Further, we agree with the trial court that “the victim’s statements to his friends and confidants were made in a casual setting and were non-testimonial in nature ... [and] ... [t]hus, the limits of Crawford do not apply.” Trial Court Opinion, 3/1/13, at 5; see Commonwealth v. Jackson, 457 Pa. 237 , 324 A.2d 350, 355 (1974) (reiterating that the right of a defendant as afforded under Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution “though fundamental, is not an absolute right ... ”). 2013Further, we agree with the trial court that “the victim’s statements to his friends and confidants were made in a casual setting and were non-testimonial in nature ... [and] ... [t]hus, the limits of Crawford do not apply.” Trial Court Opinion, 3/1/13, at 5; see Commonwealth v. Jackson, 457 Pa. 237 , 324 A.2d 350, 355 (1974) (reiterating that the right of a defendant as afforded under Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution “though fundamental, is not an absolute right ... ”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2007As I recently noted in Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 588 Pa. 19 , 902 A.2d 430, 471 (2006) (Castille, J., concurring and dissenting, with Eakin, J., joining the relevant point) that when a criminal defendant complains about his inability to "confront" a victim at trial that he made "unavailable" through his own criminal conduct, I would find that the victim's relevant out-of-court statements should be deemed admissible for the truth of the matter asserted under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception. 2007As I recently noted in Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 588 Pa. 19 , 902 A.2d 430, 471 (2006) (Castille, J., concurring and dissenting, with Eakin, J., joining the relevant point) that when a criminal defendant complains about his inability to "confront" a victim at trial that he made "unavailable" through his own criminal conduct, I would find that the victim's relevant out-of-court statements should be deemed admissible for the truth of the matter asserted under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2010The court noted if the Commonwealth met its burden, any Confrontation Clause concerns would be absent, as the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception applied not only to the hearsay rule, but also to the Confrontation Clause. 855 Id., at 26-27 (citing Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 158 , 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878)). 12 At trial, appellant renewed his objection, arguing Crawford barred the statements’ admission. 13 The trial court overruled appellant’s objection and admitted the unsworn statements and preliminary hearing testimony. 14 Appellant argues even if this evidence was admissible under the 2008Significant to our discussion, however, is the United States Supreme Court’s acceptance of the rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing on the basis that it “extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds; it does not purport to be an alternative means of determining reliability.” Id. at 62 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citing Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 158-59 , 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878)). ¶24 Recently, in Giles v. California, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2678 , 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008), while recognizing the limited applicability of the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, the United States Supreme | 3 | 2008–2016 |
Reynolds v. United States
green
2 sentences2010The court noted if the Commonwealth met its burden, any Confrontation Clause concerns would be absent, as the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception applied not only to the hearsay rule, but also to the Confrontation Clause. 855 Id., at 26-27 (citing Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 158 , 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878)). 12 At trial, appellant renewed his objection, arguing Crawford barred the statements’ admission. 13 The trial court overruled appellant’s objection and admitted the unsworn statements and preliminary hearing testimony. 14 Appellant argues even if this evidence was admissible under the 2010The court noted if the Commonwealth met its burden, any Confrontation Clause concerns would be absent, as the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception applied not only to the hearsay rule, but also to the Confrontation Clause. 855 Id., at 26-27 (citing Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 158 , 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878)). 12 At trial, appellant renewed his objection, arguing Crawford barred the statements’ admission. 13 The trial court overruled appellant’s objection and admitted the unsworn statements and preliminary hearing testimony. 14 Appellant argues even if this evidence was admissible under the | 2 | 2008–2010 |
Davis v. Washington
green
2 sentences2008Indeed, F.R.E. 804(b)(6) represents a codification of the common-law forfeiture rule, which “was aimed at removing the otherwise powerful incentive for defendants to intimidate, bribe, and kill the witnesses against them — in other words, it is grounded in ‘the ability of courts to protect the integrity of their proceedings.’ ” Id. at 2691 (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833-34 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006)). 2008Indeed, F.R.E. 804(b)(6) represents a codification of the common-law forfeiture rule, which “was aimed at removing the otherwise powerful incentive for defendants to intimidate, bribe, and kill the witnesses against them — in other words, it is grounded in ‘the ability of courts to protect the integrity of their proceedings.’ ” Id. at 2691 (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833-34 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006)). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Commonwealth v. Means
green
1 sentence2006The court shall also instruct the jury on any other matter that may be just and proper under the circumstances. [22] Appellant relies on two plurality decisions by this Court, see Commonwealth v. Means, 565 Pa. 309 , 773 A.2d 143 (2001) and Commonwealth v. Natividad, 565 Pa. 348 , 773 A.2d 167 (2001), in which we found the statute constitutional and proposed a jury instruction regarding victim impact evidence. [23] As noted, the two aggravating circumstances were the commission of a murder in the perpetration of a felony (rape), see 42 Pa.C.S. ž 9711(d)(6) and that Appellant was subject to a P | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Commonwealth v. Natividad
green
2 sentences2006The court shall also instruct the jury on any other matter that may be just and proper under the circumstances. [22] Appellant relies on two plurality decisions by this Court, see Commonwealth v. Means, 565 Pa. 309 , 773 A.2d 143 (2001) and Commonwealth v. Natividad, 565 Pa. 348 , 773 A.2d 167 (2001), in which we found the statute constitutional and proposed a jury instruction regarding victim impact evidence. [23] As noted, the two aggravating circumstances were the commission of a murder in the perpetration of a felony (rape), see 42 Pa.C.S. ž 9711(d)(6) and that Appellant was subject to a P 2006The court shall also instruct the jury on any other matter that may be just and proper under the circumstances. [22] Appellant relies on two plurality decisions by this Court, see Commonwealth v. Means, 565 Pa. 309 , 773 A.2d 143 (2001) and Commonwealth v. Natividad, 565 Pa. 348 , 773 A.2d 167 (2001), in which we found the statute constitutional and proposed a jury instruction regarding victim impact evidence. [23] As noted, the two aggravating circumstances were the commission of a murder in the perpetration of a felony (rape), see 42 Pa.C.S. ž 9711(d)(6) and that Appellant was subject to a P | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Francis v. Swisher
green
1 sentence2006The court shall also instruct the jury on any other matter that may be just and proper under the circumstances. [22] Appellant relies on two plurality decisions by this Court, see Commonwealth v. Means, 565 Pa. 309 , 773 A.2d 143 (2001) and Commonwealth v. Natividad, 565 Pa. 348 , 773 A.2d 167 (2001), in which we found the statute constitutional and proposed a jury instruction regarding victim impact evidence. [23] As noted, the two aggravating circumstances were the commission of a murder in the perpetration of a felony (rape), see 42 Pa.C.S. ž 9711(d)(6) and that Appellant was subject to a P | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.