Commonwealth v. Serge

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that all Commonwealth evidence in a criminal proceeding is generally prejudicial to the defendant, but relevant evidence is to be excluded only when it is unfairly prejudicial
• explaining that evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it causes the jury to “make a decision based upon something other than the legal propositions relevant to the case”
• stating that all Commonwealth evidence in a criminal proceeding is generally prejudicial to the defendant, but relevant evidence is to be excluded only when it is unfairly prejudicial
• affirming trial court's refusal to give instruction on imperfect self-defense when facts introduced at trial supported nothing more than defendant's voluntary intoxication
• “[A] trial court is not required to sanitize the trial to eliminate all unpleasant facts from the jury’s consideration where those facts form part of the history and natural development of the events and offenses with which [a] defendant is charged.”
• “a trial court is not required to sanitize the trial to eliminate all unpleasant facts from the jury’s consideration where those facts form part of the history and natural development of the events and offenses with which a defendant is charged.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).