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.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2020 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. Diegogreen2 sentences2018The mutual consent exception permits interception of conversations in instances where the defendant “knew, or should have known, that the conversation was recorded.” Commonwealth v. Diego, 119 A.3d 370, 377 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 129 A.3d 1240 (Pa. 2015).16 Based on the environment in which Byrd conversed with Heaps, an open visitation area in the jail, he should have known that their conversations could be recorded. 2018The mutual consent exception permits interception of conversations in instances where the defendant "knew, or should have known, that the conversation was recorded." Commonwealth v. Diego , 119 A.3d 370 , 377 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied , 634 Pa. 732 , 129 A.3d 1240 (2015). 17 Based on the environment in which Byrd conversed with Heaps, an open visitation area in the jail, he should have known that their conversations could be recorded. | 2 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Fleckgreen2 sentences2012Because he claimed self-defense at trial, Norley contends that Commonwealth v. Fleck, 372 Pa.Super. 546 , 539 A.2d 1331 (1988) governs here. 1 In Fleck , this Court determined that the trial court had erred in sua sponte charging the jury that it could find the appellant guilty of third degree simple assault if it found a scuffle through mutual consent, even though he had only been charged with second degree simple assault and the Commonwealth had not requested a mutual consent instruction. 2012Because he claimed self-defense at trial, Norley contends that Commonwealth v. Fleck, 372 Pa.Super. 546 , 539 A.2d 1331 (1988) governs here. 1 In Fleck , this Court determined that the trial court had erred in sua sponte charging the jury that it could find the appellant guilty of third degree simple assault if it found a scuffle through mutual consent, even though he had only been charged with second degree simple assault and the Commonwealth had not requested a mutual consent instruction. | 1 | 2 |
Com. v. DeMarcogreen2 sentences2020Id. 2020First, the Commonwealth cites Commonwealth v. DeMarco, 578 A.2d 942 (Pa. Super. 1990), which involved the suppression of incriminating messages left on an answering machine. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Com. v. Diego
neutral
2 sentences2018The mutual consent exception permits interception of conversations in instances where the defendant "knew, or should have known, that the conversation was recorded." Commonwealth v. Diego , 119 A.3d 370 , 377 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied , 634 Pa. 732 , 129 A.3d 1240 (2015). 17 Based on the environment in which Byrd conversed with Heaps, an open visitation area in the jail, he should have known that their conversations could be recorded. 2018The mutual consent exception permits interception of conversations in instances where the defendant "knew, or should have known, that the conversation was recorded." Commonwealth v. Diego , 119 A.3d 370 , 377 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied , 634 Pa. 732 , 129 A.3d 1240 (2015). 17 Based on the environment in which Byrd conversed with Heaps, an open visitation area in the jail, he should have known that their conversations could be recorded. | 3 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Fant, R., Aplt.
green
1 sentence2020In his suppression motion, Appellant principally relied on Commonwealth v. Fant, 146 A.3d 1254 (Pa. 2016), decided one month prior to Appellant’s suppression hearing, in which this Court held that a jail visit conversation conducted via a telephone-like handset does not constitute a “telephone call” as that term was used in the prior version of the correctional facility exception. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Byrd, J., Pet
neutral
1 sentence2020Commonwealth v. Byrd, 194 A.3d 561 (Pa. 2018) (per curiam). [J-82-2019] - 10 Appellant argues the mutual consent exception to the Wiretap Act is clear and unambiguous. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Adams v. Giroux
neutral
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.