# Commonwealth v. Young

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 27, 2004 · 578 Pa. 71

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9760711

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Christopher YOUNG, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 27, 2004
- **Citations:** 578 Pa. 71; 849 A.2d 1152; 2004 Pa. LEXIS 1218
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Saylor
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Lamb, Former
- **Cited by:** 20 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/9760711

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding court properly denied defendant’s motion for mistrial based on testimony by detective that police showed eyewitness photographs of individuals who had prior contact with police, and eyewitness identified appellant, who had “Police Photo Number 775”; detective’s referen…

## Opinion text

CONCURRING OPINION
Justice SAYLOR.
I agree that the detective’s comments were impermissible based on the law as set forth in Mr. Justice Nigro’s dissent. I am able to concur in the majority’s disposition, however, since, *79 in my view, a curative instruction would have sufficiently ameliorated the prejudice caused to Appellant by the improper remarks in this instance. See Commonwealth v. Richardson, 496 Pa. 521, 526 , 437 A.2d 1162, 1165 (1981) (“[T]he possible prejudicial effect of a witness’s reference to prior criminal conduct of the defendant may, under certain circumstances, be removed by an immediate cautionary instruction to the jury.”); see also Commonwealth v. Morris, 513 Pa. 169, 178 , 519 A.2d 374, 378 (1986) (concluding that a curative instruction alleviated the harm resulting from an impermissible reference to prior criminal activity); Commonwealth v. Williams, 470 Pa. 172, 178-79 , 368 A.2d 249, 252 (1977) (same); Commonwealth v. Maute, 336 Pa.Super. 394, 403-04 , 485 A.2d 1138, 1143 (1984) (determining that a defendant was not entitled to a mistrial based upon a comment regarding his prior criminal activity, because the prejudice could have been remedied by a curative instruction which the defendant refused). Here, however, as the majority notes, Appellant refused such an instruction.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9760711. Public record. Not legal advice.