Commonwealth v. Blow

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• where no identification of defendant made, and evidence against him for one offense was purely circumstantial, jury were likely influenced by cumulative effect of evidence
• which, however, stands primarily for the principle that offenses must be severed if they are not related
• which, however, stands primarily for the principle that offenses must be severed if they are not related
• offenses are not related merely because they were all committed by the same defendant on a single day
• “in borderline cases, [evidence of other offenses is] admissible when its relevance outweighs the undue prejudice that may flow from it, but otherwise [is] inadmissible”
• reversing convictions due to improper joinder of unrelated offenses

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).