Harman ex rel. Harman v. Borah
733 A.2d 1267, 557 Pa. 406, 1999 Pa. LEXIS 2228
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Harman ex rel. Harman v. Borah. Read the opinion of the Court — 562 Pa. 455 →
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided August 2, 1999·No. Petition Nos.20 and 26 ED Alloc. Dkt. 1999·Published
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2 nd day of August, 1999, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal at No. 020 and No. 026 Eastern District Alloc. Dkt. 1999 are GRANTED, limited to the following issue:
Did the Superior Court err by creating a per se rule that a trial court judge commits reversible error, and has no discretion to deny a motion for a mistrial whenever he or she engages in an off-the record discussion with a witness in the presence of the jury?
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal at No. 020 and No. 026 Eastern District Alloc. Dkt. 1999 are to be consolidated for purposes of oral argument.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Harman ex rel. Harman v. Borah, 733 A.2d 1267, 557 Pa. 406, 1999 Pa. LEXIS 2228 (Pa. 1999).
733 A.2d 1267 (Harman ex rel. Harman v. Borah) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.