Commonwealth v. Van Horn

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to call character witnesses and had a reasonable strategic basis for not doing so because the proposed witnesses would have been cross-examined about the defendant’s prior convictions for burglary and statutory rape
• concluding PCRA petitioner failed to establish IAC claim asserting his trial counsel’s failure to call character witnesses at trial, where petitioner did not demonstrate that the witness was available and willing to testify on - 12 - J-S09015-26 petitioner’s behalf at trial
• rejecting the appellant’s claim that his trial counsel should have called a particular witness to testify at trial, where the appellant “failed to demonstrate that [the witness] was available and prepared to testify on [the a]ppellant’s behalf at trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Johnson
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2011-08-15· cited 48×
• Commonwealth v. Hull
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2009-10-16· cited 47×
• Commonwealth v. Miller
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2006-04-24· cited 27×
• Commonwealth v. Smith
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2019-06-20· cited 22×
• Com. v. Smith, W.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2019-06-20
• Commonwealth v. McEneaney
  Delaware County Court of Common Pleas· 2007-12-27