Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Com. v. Moore

389 Pa. Super. 473 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Com. v. Moore

11 Citing cases

  1. Com. v. Impellizzeri

    443 Pa. Super. 296 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that, in reviewing a trial court's ruling on a challenge to the empaneling of a jury, "we employ a standard of review which affords great deference to the trial judge"

    Our research reveals, and the parties have cited, no Pennsylvania cases directly on point. The prosecution relies on Commonwealth v. Moore, 389 Pa. Super. 473, 567 A.2d 701 (1989), for authority that the Magazine was probative and admissible. However, that case differs significantly from the instant case.

  2. Com. v. Gaddis

    432 Pa. Super. 523 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994)   Cited 19 times
    Noting that although the Black court held that the Rape Shield Law may not be used to exclude relevant evidence attacking credibility or showing a witness's bias, subsequent decisions have narrowly applied the Black holding to admit such evidence "only where the victim's credibility was allegedly affected by 'bias against or hostility toward the defendant, or the victim had a motive to seek retribution"

    It would be difficult to conceive of a trial at which the prosecution's evidence was not prejudicial to the defendant. Commonwealth v. Moore, 389 Pa. Super. 473, 567 A.2d 701 (1989). "The difficulty arises when the evidence is so prejudicial that it sweeps the [fact finder] beyond a rational consideration of guilt or innocence of the crime on trial."

  3. Com. v. Davis

    394 Pa. Super. 591 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990)   Cited 9 times

    It would be difficult to conceive of a trial at which the prosecution's evidence was not prejudicial to the defendant. Commonwealth v. Moore, 389 Pa. Super. 473, 567 A.2d 701 (1989). "The difficulty arises when the evidence is so prejudicial that it sweeps the [fact finder] beyond a rational consideration of guilt or innocence of the crime on trial."

  4. Com. v. McMaster

    446 Pa. Super. 261 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that four-year-old victim had sufficient remembrance of the events upon which she was called to testify to be a competent witness

    Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 372 Pa. Super. 88, 96, 538 A.2d 1363, 1368 (1988). See also: Commonwealth v. Moore, 389 Pa. Super. 473, 482, 567 A.2d 701, 706 (1989); Commonwealth v. Copeland, 381 Pa. Super. 382, 387, 554 A.2d 54, 56 (1988). "Relevant evidence is usually probative.

  5. Com. v. Iannelli

    430 Pa. Super. 402 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993)   Cited 12 times

    Commonwealth v. Story, 476 Pa. 391, 412, 383 A.2d 155, 166 (1978). See also: Commonwealth v. Correa, 423 Pa. Super. 57, 70 n. 9, 620 A.2d 497, 504 n. 9 (1993); Commonwealth v. Foy, 531 Pa. 322, 325, 612 A.2d 1349, 1352 (1992); Commonwealth v.Moore, 389 Pa. Super. 473, 480, 567 A.2d 701, 705 (1989), allo.denied, 525 Pa. 597, 575 A.2d 563 (1990). My examination of the record precludes a determination that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.

  6. Com. v. Morgan

    425 Pa. Super. 344 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993)   Cited 12 times
    Noting that allegations that the sentencing court erred in calculating sentence and in applying the deadly weapon enhancement raise a substantial question under the sentencing code

    Notwithstanding, the trial judge considered these claims in his opinion to this court. Therefore the issues are properly before us. See Commonwealth v. Moore, 389 Pa. Super. 473, 567 A.2d 701 (1989) (where the trial court considered an amended post-trial motion on the merits of the issue without granting permission for the defendant to file nunc pro tunc, the issue was not waived). Appellant contends that the Commonwealth failed to sustain its burden of disproving his affirmative defense of self-defense.

  7. Com. v. Schwartz

    419 Pa. Super. 251 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that the evidence sufficiently supported a conviction of disorderly conduct as a third-degree misdemeanor where Schwartz was screaming at police and another individual and one of the officers testified that he warned Schwartz to be quiet, but Schwartz persisted in screaming

    Admission and/or exclusion is a matter squarely within the discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Moore, 389 Pa. Super. 473, 567 A.2d 701 (1989), citing Commonwealth v.Cargo, 498 Pa. 5, 444 A.2d 639 (1982). A trial court's ruling on admissibility will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.

  8. Com. v. Bybel

    399 Pa. Super. 149 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990)   Cited 7 times

    "Evidence is relevant if it tends to make more or less probable the existence of some fact material to the case, it tends to establish facts in issue or when to some degree advances the inquiry and thus has probative value." Commonwealth v. Moore, 389 Pa. Super. 473, 482, 567 A.2d 701, 706 (1989). See also: Commonwealth v. Shain, 324 Pa. Super. 456, 471 A.2d 1246 (1984).

  9. Valentine v. Wroten

    397 Pa. Super. 526 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990)   Cited 35 times
    In Valentine v. Wroten, 580 A.2d 757, 758 (Pa. Super. 1990), our Court held that an appeal will not lie from a denial of reconsideration.

    The Supreme Court has acknowledged the flexibility of the rules when trial courts have taken under advisement or consideration, petitions filed by counsel even after time for filing has passed. See Commonwealth v. Sheaff, 365 Pa. Super. 613, 530 A.2d 480 (1987); see also Commonwealth v. Moore, 389 Pa. Super. 473, 567 A.2d 701 (1989). I believe the appeal of May 5, 1989, is, therefore, timely, and is clearly permitted by a reasonable application of Rules 105 and 1701 to the procedure in this case, as followed in the trial court.

  10. Com. v. Sperry

    395 Pa. Super. 400 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990)   Cited 5 times
    In Sperry, the appellant argued that his guilty plea was invalid because he was not notified of his right to a jury trial.

    We are bolstered in this position by recent Supreme Court decisions which have permitted review by this Court, even when in violation of procedural rules, when the trial court has entertained the petition and ruled upon it. See Commonwealth v.Sheaff, 518 Pa. 655, 544 A.2d 1342 (1988) (Table), reversingCommonwealth v. Sheaff, 365 Pa. Super. 613, 530 A.2d 480 (1987); also see Commonwealth v. Moore, 369 Pa. Super. 473, 567 A.2d 701 (1989). Order affirmed as to the first five convictions dating from October 7, 1982 to October 4, 1984.