Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Bond

Citations

  • 190 A.3d 664

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that a forensic interview was improperly admitted pursuant to Pa.R.E. 613(c) because it did not serve to rehabilitate the victim’s credibility
  • noting “[t]o constitute reversible error, an evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous, but also harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party”
  • rejecting argument that prior consistent statement was admissible under Rule 613(c)(2
  • Commonwealth argument that it was “important for the jury to view the video … supports its admission under Rule 106.”
  • “To constitute reversible error, an evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous, but also harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party.” (citation omitted)
  • “Given the extent to which defense counsel relied on the Interview Video during her cross-examination of the victim, the prosecution was entitled to introduce Child’s entire account of the assault in order to provide full context.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ott, Stabile, Musmanno

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.