# Commonwealth v. Jacoby, T., Aplt.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 28, 2017 · 170 A.3d 1065

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9878611

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Timothy Matthew JACOBY, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 28, 2017
- **Citations:** 170 A.3d 1065
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Donohue
- **Judges:** Saylor, Baer, Todd, Donohue, Dougherty, Wecht, Mundy
- **Cited by:** 233 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/9878611

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding no probable cause was established in the warrant application when the officer asserted that a murder weapon would be found at the defendant’s home 15 months after the murder occurred, because the defendant was a felon, not permitted to lawfully own a firearm, and would…
- holding that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and surveillance-video evidence did not warrant a finding that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; “the [fact-finder] is entitled to resolve any inconsistencies in the Commonwealth’s evidence in the man…
- explaining that the possessory offense, in and of itself, is not dispositive; rather, Peterkin requires us to focus upon whether the defendant is charged with possessing a certain item or contraband at the time of the contested search and seizure
- rejecting the trial court’s “categorical assumption” that people “generally hold on to guns . . . and that, as such, probable cause to search for guns exists in apparent perpetuity” in support of its finding that probable cause existed to search a defendant’s residence for a f…
- stating that “inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony are not sufficient to warrant a new trial on grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence” (citation omitted)

## Opinion text

JUSTICE DONOHUE, concurring and dissenting opinion
I join the Majority’s reasoning and disposition with respect to all of Jacoby’s issues, except with respect to part VIII, on which I join in Chief Justice Saylor’s Dissenting Opinion with respect to the denial of Jacoby’s request for a Frye hearing on the subject of Y-STR DNA testing. For this reason, I would reverse the trial court’s ruling.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9878611. Public record. Not legal advice.