Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Ewell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 19, 1983No. 1047PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WIEAND, Judge:

If, during a jury trial on a charge of driving while under the influence of alcohol, the prosecuting attorney deliberately elicits from a Commonwealth witness an extrajudicial statement attributed to the defendant “that he had an incident before for drunken driving,” can the prejudice be removed by an instruction from the court that the statement can be used to show the defendant’s state of mind or the state of his condition but that, in fact, “[tjhere is nothing in the record available for the prosecution or de fense ... that the defendant was arrested or prosecuted for drunken…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. MorrisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Commonwealth v. FortuneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Commonwealth v. SpruillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. Commonwealth v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Commonwealth v. RussellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. MurphySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Commonwealth v. SatzbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  3. Commonwealth v. BedleyoungSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  4. Commonwealth v. MurphySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Commonwealth v. MurphySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API