# Commonwealth v. Baez

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 23, 1998 · 554 Pa. 66

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746555

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Orlando BAEZ, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 23, 1998
- **Citations:** 554 Pa. 66; 720 A.2d 711; 1998 Pa. LEXIS 2507
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nigro
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman
- **Cited by:** 147 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/9746555

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, where the trial court issued a limiting instruction to the jury prior to showing the video depicting the victim’s body, cautioning the jurors as to its narrow relevance and clearly instructing them not to allow the video to stir their emotions to the prejudice of…
- concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting evidence regarding an eyewitness’s abuse of cocaine, as such evidence “would have served to unduly distract the attention of the jury from the main inquiry[,] and required the ascertainment of an unnecess…
- holding that prosecutor was commenting "not on appellant's post-arrest silence, but on his post-arrest statements" when prosecutor referenced appellant's statement "I'm keeping it to myself' and implied that certain conclusions could not be drawn from that statement
- concluding that the “appellant’s [post-arrest] spontaneous utterances were not rendered involuntary simply because he had a pair of handcuffs on his hands”
- concluding that spontaneous statements, not the product of police conduct, are admissible even when the suspect has not received Miranda warnings

## Opinion text

NIGRO, Justice,
concurring.
With the exception of footnote 40, which relates to the Majority’s discussion of Appellant’s Batson claim, .1 join the Majority’s opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746555. Public record. Not legal advice.