328 Pa. Super. 393 - Commonwealth v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
July 2001
most recently cited
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Peterson · Commonwealth v. Stanley · Commonwealth v. Morris · 302 Pa. Super. 145 - Commonwealth v. Galloway · 265 Pa. Super. 194 - Commonwealth v. Stanley
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The grant or denial of severance or the consolidation of charges for trial is a matter of discretion with the trial judge, and his decision will be reversed only for manifest abuse of discretion, or prejudice to the defendant. Commonwealth v. Morris, 493 Pa. 164 , 425 A.2d 715 (1981); Commonwealth v. Larkins, 302 Pa.Super. 528 , 449 A.2d 42 (1982); Commonwealth v. Galloway, 302 Pa.Super. 145 , 448 A.2d 568 (1982). The test of whether consolidation is proper is related to the test of whether evidence of one crime may be admitted at the trial for another. The present rule in Pennsylvania is that consolidation is proper ... if (1) the facts and elements of the two crimes are easily separable in the minds of the jury; and (2) the crimes are such that the fact of the commission of each crime would be admissible as evidence in a separate trial for the other. (Citations omitted). Commonwealth v. Galloway, id., 302 Pa.Super. at 154, 448 A.2d at 573 (quoting Commonwealth v. Terrell, 234 Pa.Super. 325, 328 , 339 A.2d 112, 114 (1975). See also, Commonwealth v. Boyd, 315 Pa.Super. 308 , 461 A.2d 1294 (1983); Commonwealth v. Matthews, 314 Pa.Super. 38 , 460 A.2d 362 (1983).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The courts of this Commonwealth employ the test of whether the crimes specified in the original indictment or information involve the same basic elements and evolved out of the same factual situation as the crimes specified in the amended indictment or information. If so, then the defendant is deemed to have been placed on notice regarding his alleged criminal conduct. If, however, the amended provision alleges a different set of events, or the elements or defenses to the amended crime are materially different from the elements or defenses to the crime originally charged, such that the defendant would be prejudiced by the change, then the amendment is not permitted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The court may allow an information to be amended when there is a defect in form, the description of the offense, the description of any person or any property, or the date charged, provided the information as amended does not charge an additional or different offense. Upon amendment the court may grant such postponement of trial or other relief as is necessary in the interests of justice.”
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.