Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 414 Pa. Super. 21 - Commonwealth v. Novasak

414 Pa. Super. 21 - Commonwealth v. Novasak’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
January 2020
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 2020

22 state decisions

1201992200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Young · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · Johnson v. Righetti · Commonwealth v. Pierce · Commonwealth v. Hubbard

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has consistently held that “not every intemperate or uncalled for remark by the prosecutor requires a new trial.” Commonwealth v. Green, 525 Pa. 424, 460 , 581 A.2d 544, 561 (1990). A new trial is required only in those instances where the language of the prosecutor is such that its “unavoidable effect would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant, so that they could not weigh the evidence and render a true verdict.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 516 Pa. 527, 533 , 533 A.2d 994, 997 (1987). The prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s remarks must be evalu ated in the context in which they occurred. Commonwealth v. Green, supra, 525 Pa. 424 , 581 A.2d 544 . A criminal conviction is not to be lightly overturned on the basis of a prosecutor’s comments standing alone, for the statement or conduct must be viewed in context; only by so doing can it be determined whether the prosecutor’s conduct affected the fairness of the trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It is important to note that the Rule [Pa.R.Crim.P. 305B(2)(d) ] speaks in terms of a showing by the defendant. These conditions cannot be assumed, and they must be supported by evidence on the record. It is in this context that the evidence presented at the hearing must be examined to determine whether the defendant met his burden.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “B. Disclosure by the Commonwealth (1) Mandatory: In all court cases, on request by the defendant, and subject to any protective order which the Commonwealth might obtain under this rule, the Commonwealth shall disclose to the defendant’s attorney all of the following requested items or information, provided they are material to the instant case. The Commonwealth shall, when applicable, permit the defendant’s attorney to inspect and copy or photograph such items. (a) Any evidence favorable to the accused which is material either to guilt or to punishment, and which is within the possession or control of the attorney for the Commonwealth; (b) any written confession or inculpa-tory statement, or the substance of any oral confession or inculpatory statement, and the identity of the person to whom the confession or inculpatory statement was made, which is in the possession or control of the attorney for the Commonwealth; (c) the defendant’s prior criminal record; (d) the circumstances and results of any identification of the defendant by voice, photograph, or in-person identification; (e) results or reports of scientific tests, expert opinions, and written or recorded reports of polygraph examinations or other physical or mental examinations of the defendant, which are within the possession or control of the attorney for the Commonwealth; (f) any tangible objects, including documents, photographs, fingerprints, or other tangible evidence; (g) the transcripts and recordings of any ”
    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.