Commonwealth v. Howard

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that retail theft is crimen falsi and may be used to prove a lack of character for truthfulness
• explaining that Rule 609 states “any witness” and does not distinguish between a defendant and any other witness
• Rule 609 “contemplate[s] the impeachment of a witness through the use of his or her prior convictions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Palo
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2011-07-01· cited 93×
• Commonwealth v. Cascardo
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2009-09-02· cited 36×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Albrecht
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1998-11-23· cited 654×
• Coker v. SM Flickinger Co., Inc.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-06-02· cited 222×
• Commonwealth v. Randall
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-07-09· cited 126×
• Allen v. Kaplan
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-01-31· cited 15×
• Commonwealth v. Vitale
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-08-23· cited 14×
• Commonwealth v. Young
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-03-09· cited 3×