Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 8/23/1994

Commonwealth v. Rush

Citations

646 A.2d 557
538 Pa. 104
1994 Pa. LEXIS 386

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the pictures of the victim’s body at the crime scene were admissible despite testimony from a medical examiner
holding that the pictures of the victim's body at the crime scene were admissible despite testimony from a medical examiner
holding that evidence of two assault crimes contained “uniquely similar attributes” to warrant the conclusion that one individual committed both crimes
stating that eight years separating the commission of the two crimes is not considered too remote because defendant was incarcerated for much of the time
stating that “much more is demanded than the mere repeated commission of crimes of the same class…. The device used must be so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.”
excluding defendant’s period of incarceration from relevant time period for remoteness analysis, where eight years separated commission of crimes in question

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nix, Flaherty, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy, Montemuro, Larsen, Docket

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

34 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

20 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.