Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 6/23/2004

Commonwealth v. Harris

Citations

852 A.2d 1168
578 Pa. 377
2004 Pa. LEXIS 1399

How courts have described this case

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

noting that a claim of trial court error not included in a PCRA petition will not be considered by the court
noting that Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 406 provides that evidence of habit is relevant and admissible to establish conduct in conformity therewith
finding that trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to impeach a witness with mental health information which the trial court has precluded from being introduced
indicating that, while intoxication of the witness at the time of the occurrence is generally relevant, “the jury should not consider for impeachment purposes the use of drugs or alcohol at other irrelevant times” (emphasis in original)
finding no prejudice or basis for ineffectiveness from a failure to effectively cross-examine a witness where trial counsel cross-examined the witness on similar, although not identical, issues raised on appeal
denying collateral relief where petitioner failed to raise confrontation claim on direct appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Baer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.