Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 7/27/2006

Commonwealth v. Thomas

Citations

904 A.2d 964
2006 Pa. Super. 192
2006 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1679

How courts have described this case

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

concluding there was no error in the omission of a prompt complaint instruction under similar circumstances
stating that “if a complaint is delayed substantially without any reasonable explanation, an inference can be drawn regarding the credibility of that complaint and against whether the incident in fact occurred.”
stating that “[i]n examining the propriety of the instructions a trial court presents to a jury, our scope of review is to determine whether the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case.”
“A jury charge will be deemed erroneous only if the charge as a whole is inadequate, not clear or has a tendency to mislead or confuse, rather than clarify, a material issue.”
discussing availability of prompt complaint jury instructions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Elliott, Stevens, Tamilia

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 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.