2012 Pa. Super. 230 - Commonwealth v. Lynch’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Stallworth · 2006 Pa. Super. 170 - Commonwealth v. Preston · 2004 Pa. Super. 358 - Commonwealth v. Hunt · 2007 Pa. Super. 260 - Commonwealth v. Trippett · 2008 Pa. Super. 166 - Commonwealth v. Booze
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our standard of review for evaluating claims brought pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure 1013 is the same as that applied to claims made under Rule of Criminal Procedure 600. The purpose of the rules is similar, and the case law applies equally to both. When considering any “speedy trial” claim, the proper scope of review is limited to the evidence on the record from the eviden-tiary hearing and the findings of the trial court.... In assessing a Rule 1013 issue, we are confined to determining whether the trial court committed an “abuse of discretion” in reaching its decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Id. Rule 404(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence permits admission of prior bad acts evidence in certain circumstances. Rule 404(b)(3) requires the Commonwealth to provide the defense reasonable notice of its intent to introduce such evidence. Specifically, the Rule relevantly provides: In a criminal case the prosecutor must provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence the prosecutor intends to introduce at trial. Pa.R.E. 404(b)(3).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The purpose of this rule is to prevent unfair surprise, and to give the defendant reasonable time to prepare an objection to, or ready a rebuttal for, such evidence. However, there is no requirement that the 'notice' must be formally given or be in writing in order for the evidence to be admissible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.