Commonwealth v. Ivy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A ruling on a motion in limine is not a final order for purposes of appeal. The [c]ourt believes that the general rule in criminal cases: that a defendant may appeal only from a final judgment of sentence, and an appeal from any prior order or judgment will be quashed is applicable to the case at bar, and.as such this issue is not reviewable by the Superior Court. The Superior Court is considering the appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 313 (collateral orders):, however, the [c]ourt believes that the three prongs of Pa.R.A.P. 313 that render an interlocutory order... ap-pealable have not been met. [[Image here]] An interlocutory order is [immediately] appealable if.(l) it is separable from and collateral to the main cause of action: (2) the right involved is too important to be denied review: and (3) the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claimed right will be irreparably lost. Appellant’s claim fails the third prong. The claim, i.e., that he should be able to submit evidence that the [c]ourt is not admitting, does not evade review after final judgment. Appellant can appeal the denial after trial and will be granted a new trial if appropriate. If Appellant is ultimately convicted, the [c]ourt’s decision to preclude [d]efense evidence can be reviewed through Appellant’s right to direct appeal, thus, the claim will not [be] lost. [ Ivy, supra]. An order is not immediately appealable if it cannot be said “that ‘denial of immediate rev”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Parker

2. “Our Supreme Court has consistently recognized that admission of distinct crimes may be proper where it is part of the history or natural development of the case, i.e., the res gestae exception. [... 0]ur Supreme Court explained, the res gestae exception to the general proscription against evidence of other crimes, is also known as the complete story rationale, ie., evidence of other criminal acts is admissible to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place. Where the res gestae exception is applicable, the trial court must balance the probative value of such evidence against its prejudicial impact. In conducting this balancing test, courts must consider factors such as the strength of the other crimes evidence, the similarities between the crimes, the time lapse between crimes, the need for the other crimes evidence, the efficacy of alternative proof of the charged crime, and the degree to which the evidence probably will rouse the jury to overmastering hostility.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 261 - Commonwealth v. Yocolano

3. “[wjhile evidence of prior bad acts is not admissible to show criminal propensity, evidence of other crimes may be admissible if it is relevant to show some other legitimate purpose. Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353, 358 (Pa.Super. 2015). An exception to Rule 404(b) exists that permits the admission of evidence where it became part of the history of the case and formed part of the natural development of facts. Commonwealth v. Solano, [— Pa. -] 129 A.3d 1156, 1178 (Pa. 2015). This exception is commonly referred to as the res gestae exception. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 247 - Commonwealth v. Richard