# Commonwealth v. Ballard

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 21, 2013 · 622 Pa. 177

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4968155

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Michael Eric BALLARD
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 21, 2013
- **Citations:** 622 Pa. 177; 80 A.3d 380; 2013 Pa. LEXIS 2806; 2013 WL 6124340
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Todd
- **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, McCaffery, Saylor, Stevens, Todd
- **Cited by:** 117 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4968155

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that a trial court abuses “its discretion in admitting [gruesome] photographs when the situation generally entails indifference from the trial court or the Commonwealth to the photographs’ prejudicial effect, or where the precautions taken were not commensurate [J-2…
- affirming the defendant’s convictions for multiple counts of first-degree murder and explaining that “the nature of the killings, which [the defendant] alone committed without an accomplice, established malice and specific intent” because the four victims “were each stabbed nu…
- holding that, where victim impact witness [J-89-2014] - 48 deviated from the approved statement, the appellant was required to object to preserve his claim of error
- holding that, where victim impact witness deviated from the approved statement, the appellant was required to object to preserve his claim of error

## Opinion text

Justice TODD,
concurring.
I join the Majority Opinion in all but one respect. Among other challenges to the cross examination of Appellant’s expert, Dr. Ruben Gur, Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in allowing questioning concerning the exclusion of Dr. Gur’s testimony in United States v. Montgomery, 635 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir.2011), an unrelated federal prosecution. See Majority Opinion at 394-98. I agree with Appellant that this questioning should not have been allowed. According to the majority, “the questions about Montgomery , the federal prosecution in which Dr. Gur’s testimony was excluded, pushed the bounds of relevancy given the obvious complications involving factual distinctions, different evidentiary standards, and the dubious relevance of another court’s discretionary rulings.” Id. at 397 n.19. Rather than allow this type of cross examination as “pushing the bounds of relevancy,” I would disallow it, and find its admission to be an abuse of discretion. However, as I believe the trial court’s error was harmless in this particular case, as the majority acknowledges in the alternative, see id., I would reject Appellant’s claim on that basis, and therefore would nevertheless affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4968155. Public record. Not legal advice.