suggested instruction in Pennsylvania

1986As recognized in Commonwealth v. Tate, 495 Pa. 158 , 432 A.2d 1382 (1981), a balancing process is required which should attempt to maximize each side's enjoyment of the respective rights claimed.

1986As recognized in Commonwealth v. Tate, 495 Pa. 158 , 432 A.2d 1382 (1981), a balancing process is required which should attempt to maximize each side's enjoyment of the respective rights claimed.

1972Bruno v. Herold, 408 F. 2d 125 (2nd Cir. 1969) (Judge WATERMAN, dissenting); see also Note, 54 Cal. L.

1972Bruno v. Herold, 408 F. 2d 125 (2nd Cir. 1969) (Judge Waterman, dissenting) ; see also Note, 54 Cal. L.

2026Our Supreme Court has considered the subcommittee’s notes when reviewing jury instruction challenges, expressly noting that the subcommittee members have “undoubtedly spent countless hours discussing, drafting, debating, and redrafting the model instructions[.]” Commonwealth v. Drummond, 285 A.3d 625 , 639, 642 (Pa. 2022) (considering the subcommittee note to a suggested standard criminal jury instruction in determining the propriety of a “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” instruction given by the trial court); see also Pownall, 278 A.3d at 896 n.11 (stating the subcommittee note supported the

2026Our Supreme Court has considered the subcommittee’s notes when reviewing jury instruction challenges, expressly noting that the subcommittee members have “undoubtedly spent countless hours discussing, drafting, debating, and redrafting the model instructions[.]” Commonwealth v. Drummond, 285 A.3d 625 , 639, 642 (Pa. 2022) (considering the subcommittee note to a suggested standard criminal jury instruction in determining the propriety of a “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” instruction given by the trial court); see also Pownall, 278 A.3d at 896 n.11 (stating the subcommittee note supported the

2025See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(b); Kerrigan, supra. As discussed in our analysis of Appellant’s earlier appellate issues, Appellant had notice and was aware of the second-degree murder charge, with robbery as the predicate offense, at the time the criminal indictment was amended.

2024In Voytko, the appellant had “found his wife in an act of ____________________________________________ 3 The following cautionary language precedes the suggested instruction: “[Heat of Passion: to be given only if the facts of record support].” Pa. SSJI (Crim) 15.2503A. - 10 - J-A20028-24 adultery with (the victim), had physically fought with (the victim), had argued with his wife, had been deserted by his wife, and finally, had found her in (the victim’s) company, returning from a date, at 5:00 a.m.” Id. at 23 .

2024Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821, 845 (Pa. 2014); Commonwealth v. Raymond, 233 A.3d 809 , 819-20 & n.5 (Pa. Super. 2020) (trial court’s jury instruction was inadequate and created - 11 - J-S19036-24 reversible error despite fact that it conformed to the suggested standard jury instruction); Nichols, 692 A.2d at 186 -87 & n.4 (counsel was ineffective for failure to object to standard jury instruction that misstated mens rea of offense).

2024Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821, 845 (Pa. 2014); Commonwealth v. Raymond, 233 A.3d 809 , 819-20 & n.5 (Pa. Super. 2020) (trial court’s jury instruction was inadequate and created - 11 - J-S19036-24 reversible error despite fact that it conformed to the suggested standard jury instruction); Nichols, 692 A.2d at 186 -87 & n.4 (counsel was ineffective for failure to object to standard jury instruction that misstated mens rea of offense).

2024Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821, 845 (Pa. 2014); Commonwealth v. Raymond, 233 A.3d 809 , 819-20 & n.5 (Pa. Super. 2020) (trial court’s jury instruction was inadequate and created - 11 - J-S19036-24 reversible error despite fact that it conformed to the suggested standard jury instruction); Nichols, 692 A.2d at 186 -87 & n.4 (counsel was ineffective for failure to object to standard jury instruction that misstated mens rea of offense).

2024Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 108 A.3d 821, 845 (Pa. 2014); Commonwealth v. Raymond, 233 A.3d 809 , 819-20 & n.5 (Pa. Super. 2020) (trial court’s jury instruction was inadequate and created - 11 - J-S19036-24 reversible error despite fact that it conformed to the suggested standard jury instruction); Nichols, 692 A.2d at 186 -87 & n.4 (counsel was ineffective for failure to object to standard jury instruction that misstated mens rea of offense).

2023Id.

2020Id. at 1038 .

2017The optional language provides that the length of delay between arrest and arraignment should be considered in determining the voluntariness of the defendant’s confession. 24 This time period (between arrest and arraignment) has legal relevance as this Court previously held in Commonwealth v. Davenport, 471 Pa. 278 , 370 A.2d 301 (1977), overruled by Commonwealth v. Perez, 577 Pa. 360 , 845 A.2d 779 (2004), that if a defendant was not arraigned within six hours after his arrest, the statements made after his arrest were inadmissible at trial.

2017The optional language provides that the length of delay between arrest and arraignment should be considered in determining the voluntariness of the defendant’s confession. 24 This time period (between arrest and arraignment) has legal relevance as this Court previously held in Commonwealth v. Davenport, 471 Pa. 278 , 370 A.2d 301 (1977), overruled by Commonwealth v. Perez, 577 Pa. 360 , 845 A.2d 779 (2004), that if a defendant was not arraigned within six hours after his arrest, the statements made after his arrest were inadmissible at trial.

2017The optional language provides that the length of delay between arrest and arraignment should be considered in determining the voluntariness of the defendant’s confession. 24 This time period (between arrest and arraignment) has legal relevance as this Court previously held in Commonwealth v. Davenport, 471 Pa. 278 , 370 A.2d 301 (1977), overruled by Commonwealth v. Perez, 577 Pa. 360 , 845 A.2d 779 (2004), that if a defendant was not arraigned within six hours after his arrest, the statements made after his arrest were inadmissible at trial.

2017The optional language provides that the length of delay between arrest and arraignment should be considered in determining the voluntariness of the defendant’s confession. 24 This time period (between arrest and arraignment) has legal relevance as this Court previously held in Commonwealth v. Davenport, 471 Pa. 278 , 370 A.2d 301 (1977), overruled by Commonwealth v. Perez, 577 Pa. 360 , 845 A.2d 779 (2004), that if a defendant was not arraigned within six hours after his arrest, the statements made after his arrest were inadmissible at trial.

2016See Commonwealth v. Towles, 106 A.3d 591 , 607 n.9 (Pa. 2014) (declining to “critique the subtleties of the language in the Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Jury Instructions” in the absence of a claim that those instructions violate the appellant’s constitutional or other legal rights), cert. denied, Towles v. Pennsylvania, 135 S. Ct. 1494 (2015); Trill, supra (finding the “distinction between ‘may’ and ‘will’ … to be specious[]”).

2016As stated supra “[c]omments by a prosecutor constitute reversible error only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the evidence objectively and render a fair verdict.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 746 A.2d at 601–02.

2016The trial judge did instruct the jury thoroughly upon the general subject of credibility in accordance with the suggested instruction for witness credibility. … We believe that, under the fact of this case, this was sufficient to permit the jury to ascertain the truthfulness of the testimony offered by the minor complaining witness as well as of others who testified in this matter.”) - 16 - J-S60034-16 “The decision to declare a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the court and will not be reversed absent a ‘flagrant abuse of discretion.’” Commonwealth v. Manley, 985 A.2d 256 , 266–67 (