Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 10/8/2013

Commonwealth v. Stokes

Citations

78 A.3d 644
2013 Pa. Super. 272
2013 WL 5536573
2013 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2710

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 defendant’s filing of a motion in limine to exclude evidence preserved the issue for appeal, because although the defendant “did not expressly object” when the trial court denied his motion, “neither did he consent or agree to the ruling”
stating that, “[t]he admissibility of evidence is a matter directed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court may reverse only upon a showing that the trial court abused that discretion”
noting that “evidence is only admissible where the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial impact[,]” but noting that where the admission of evidence is erroneous the error may be deemed harmless (citation omitted)
holding any error in admitting evidence under similar weapons exception was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, including testimony of several eyewitnesses who identified the defendant, and testified he shot the victim at close range
discussing generally the admissibility at trial of physical evidence directly connected to the crime charged
also noting the admission of evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bender, Elliott, Wecht

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

37 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.