Com. v. Byers

8 Citing cases

  1. Jennings v. Commonwealth

    65 Va. App. 669 (Va. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 6 times

    (8th Cir.2010) (writing inscribed on safe's interior); United States v. Yamin, 868 F.2d 130 (5th Cir.1989) (counterfeit trademarks on watches); People v. Bizieff, 226 Cal.App.3d 1689, 277 Cal.Rptr. 678 (1991) (credit card); People v. Mastin, 115 Cal.App.3d 978, 171 Cal.Rptr. 780 (1981) (four guns and a knife inscribed with owner's initials); People v. Wortham, 690 P.2d 876 (Colo.App.1984) (“for rent” sign posted on front door of a home); Lawson v. State, 803 N.E.2d 237 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (labels on beer bottles); Conner v. State, 34 Md.App. 124, 366 A.2d 385, 390 (1976) (“manufacturer's ‘secret’ serial number located in a ‘secret’ place on [a] motorcycle”); Commonwealth v. Blood, 77 Mass. 74 (1858) (labels on jugs); State v. O'Dell, 649 S.W.2d 504 (Mo.Ct.App.1983) (serial number stamped on boat trailer); State v. Fontana, 589 S.W.2d 639 (Mo.Ct.App.1979) (credits cards and driver's license); State v. Powell, 61 N.C.App. 124, 300 S.E.2d 270 (1983) (serial numbers inscribed on tractors); Commonwealth v. Byers, 320 Pa.Super. 223, 467 A.2d 9, 11 (1983) (“mail addressed to appellant and prescription vials bearing appellant's name”); Wallis v. State, 546 S.W.2d 244 (Tenn.Crim.App.1976) (serial numbers on television sets); State v. Hillman, 150 Wis.2d 946, 444 N.W.2d 66 (Wis.Ct.App.1989) (tax numbers inscribed on boxes of cigarettes). Two cases from Alabama have held that testimony about the contents of price tags, without admission of the price tags themselves, does not violate the best evidence rule.

  2. Commonwealth v. Bennett

    2015 Pa. Super. 198 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015)

    He also claims the evidence against him should have been suppressed because the police car approached him with the high beams on and the siren was not activated. Specifically, see Commonwealth v. Byers,320 Pa.Super. 223, 467 A.2d 9, 11 (1983)(habeas corpussubsumed by PCRA) and 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542 (same). We wish to make clear that we are not in any way suggesting Bennett file a PCRA petition or that any of the claims are in any way meritorious.

  3. Commonwealth v. Bennett

    2015 Pa. Super. 198 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015)

    He also claims the evidence against him should have been suppressed because the police car approached him with the high beams on and the siren was not activated. Specifically, see Commonwealth v. Byers, 320 Pa.Super. 223, 467 A.2d 9, 11 (1983) (habeas corpus subsumed by PCRA) and 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542 (same). We wish to make clear that we are not in any way suggesting Bennett file a PCRA petition or that any of the claims are in any way meritorious.

  4. Commonwealth v. Bennett

    2015 Pa. Super. 198 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015)

    He also claims the evidence against him should have been suppressed because the police car approached him with the high beams on and the siren was not activated.Specifically, see Commonwealth v. Byers, 320 Pa.Super. 223, 467 A.2d 9, 11 (1983) (habeas corpus subsumed by PCRA) and 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542 (same). We wish to make clear that we are not in any way suggesting Bennett file a PCRA petition or that any of the claims are in any way meritorious.

  5. Commonwealth v. Townsend

    2000 Pa. Super. 32 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000)   Cited 14 times

    . . ." Commonwealth v. Byers, 467 A.2d 9, 13 (Pa.Super. 1983) (quoting Ledford v. Pittsburgh and Lake Erie R.R. Co., 345 A.2d 218, 224 (Pa.Super. 1975)). ¶ 10 The learned trial court and both parties stated the best evidence rule was applicable and was violated because the contents of the confession are material to the issue of appellant's guilt or innocence.

  6. Com. v. Johnson

    541 A.2d 332 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988)   Cited 21 times
    Noting failure to provide adequate “statement of reasons for the sentence imposed is reversible error requiring resentencing”

    The best evidence rule requires that, "to prove the contents of a writing, the original writing must be produced, unless a sufficient reason for not producing it is shown." Commonwealth v. Byers, 320 Pa. Super. 223, 227, 467 A.2d 9, 11 (1983). A copy of the original document may be admitted if it is shown that the original is not available and that the copy conforms to the contents of the original.

  7. Com. v. Cessna

    371 Pa. Super. 89 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988)   Cited 13 times

    We have defined the best-evidence rule as requiring the production of the original writing to prove the contents of that writing, unless a sufficient reason for not producing it is shown. Commonwealthv. Byers, 320 Pa. Super. 223, 467 A.2d 9 (1983), citing McCormick on Evidence 559 et seq. (2d ed. 1972). If, as a practical matter, the document cannot be produced because it is lost or destroyed, production of the original is excused and other evidence of the contents becomes admissible.

  8. Com. v. Riley

    330 Pa. Super. 201 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)   Cited 11 times

    When weighing the sufficiency of evidence we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom, determine whether the trier of fact could find every element of the crime present beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Byers, 320 Pa. Super. 223, 467 A.2d 9 (1983). Credibility of a witness is a factual issue to be resolved by the trier of fact. Commonwealth v. Hartzell, 320 Pa. Super. 249, 467 A.2d 22 (1983). Furthermore, although a defendant introduces an alibi defense, the jury is free to disbelieve such testimony.