297 Pa. Super. 308 - Commonwealth v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
November 1983
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Beck v. State of Ohio · Commonwealth v. Jones · Commonwealth v. Powers
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.
“Such a reference does not automatically require a new trial. Instead, a new trial is only necessitated where an improper comment was not curable by curative instruction or where it is curable but such was not given and the trial court and trial counsel could not reasonably conclude that such would reinforce the inference. In the context of this current case, we find that a curative instruction could have negated the inference, but instead counsel failed to request such instruction, possibly concluding reasonably that such would reinforce the inference. Commonwealth v. Bunting, 284 Pa.Superior Ct. 444, 426 A.2d 130 (1981). As appellant did not request a curative instruction, he may not on this appeal complain of prejudi cial error. Commonwealth v. Humphreys, 267 Pa.Superior Ct. 318, 406 A.2d 1060 (1979).”
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.