Case law

Commonwealth v. Simms

228 Pa. Super. 85 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1974

Legal insanity, established under this formula, is grounds for complete acquittal in Pennsylvania. … In support of the plea the defendant produced evidence of his discharge from the Air Force because of mental illness and the testimony of three eminently qualified psychiatrists, each of whom expressed without qualification

Com. v. Girvan, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 26, 2026

Nor does this assertion establish that the limited law library was a violation of his rights under constitutional or state law. … as “newly discovered facts,” as he was clearly aware of his own version of events at the time of trial.

Com. v. Leach, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2015

and obtain disclosure of a confidential informant's identity, a defendant must first establish, pursuant to Rule 573(B)(2)(a)(i), that the information sought is material to the preparation of the defense … It is well-established that: [h]earsay is a statement, other than a statement made by the declarant while testifying under oath, which is offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Com. v. Szekeres, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2015

Foley opined that Szekeres did not qualify as a SVP. The trial court found Szekeres to be a SVP, and ultimately sentenced him to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 16 to 32 years. … facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them, or to give them equal weight with all the facts, is -4- J-S61010-15 to deny justice.

Zanicky, J. v. Skopow, P.

2025 Pa. Super. 114 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 30, 2025

The handwritten instrument memorializing their agreement, along with the other stipulated facts, clearly and undoubtedly establish that Seller and Buyer entered into an installment land contract, rather than an earnest-money … Title 42 established a new statute of limitations. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5501-5574.

Com. v. Talley, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 2017

He had until 1975 to -3- J-S26001-17 file a timely PCRA petition, and the October 3, 2016 request for relief was clearly untimely. … “To qualify for an exception to the PCRA's time limitations under subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii), a petitioner need only establish that the facts upon which the claim is based were unknown to him and could not have been ascertained

Com. v. Brand, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2018

Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), establishes the newly-discovered fact exception to the PCRA’s time-bar under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). … Clearly, -2- J-S71015-17 Brand was aware that he was not sentenced by a jury when he received his sentence.

Com. v. Westerfer, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 26, 2026

Section 3802(d)(2) does not require expert testimony to establish that the driver’s impairment resulted from drug use. … Appellant argues, however, that Officer Honick was not qualified or offered as an expert. Appellant’s Brief at 12.

Com. v. Marion, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2019

Finally, there is no evidence that her identification was weakened or qualified or that she ever failed to identify [Appellant]. … Clearly, the evidence presented at Appellant’s non-jury trial supporting the identification of Appellant was much stronger than what was presented in Crews and Wiley.

In re Jerome Markowitz Trust

2013 Pa. Super. 128 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 2013

[The IAA established] a contractual relationship between Glenmede and the Trust in which Glenmede agreed [to] establish an investment advisory account (“Account”) in the Trust’s name and to serve as the Trust’s investment … A conclusion or judgment constitutes an abuse of discretion if it is so- lacking in support as to be clearly erroneous....

Lemenestrel v. Warden

2008 Pa. Super. 295 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2008

Judge Burr concluded: “[T]he nature of these infrequent social contacts is not sufficient to establish that Mr. … Essentially, the LeMenestrels have failed to develop their argument to establish that their fourth issue has merit.

Hutcheson, W. v. Suissa, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2023

Pielli to qualify for assistance programs to cover his medical expenses. Mother’s income was too high for Mr. Pielli to qualify for these programs if they remained married. When she learned that Mr. … efforts at courtroom administration—even a stern and short- - 12 - J-A03034-23 tempered judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—remain immune

Bukowski, J. v. Heim, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 23, 2022

Marcolini’s experience in the emergency department did not qualify her as an expert on the corporate standard of care for hospitals and that she failed to establish a basis for her contention that the Moses Taylor emergency … Rinder’s experience as a hematologist did not qualify him to opine about the standard of care for pharmacists, and that Dr.

Veloric, G. v. Doe, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2015

It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, and to require him to answer if ‘it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.’ … It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, and to require him to answer if ‘it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.’ Id. (citations omitted).

Com. v. Larson, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2014

The expert qualified for the defense elaborated on numerous areas of concern including the provided breath flow rates for the duplicate breath samples, volume of Appellant’s breath samples, the … Valentine established that the BAC test results in this case were wholly unreliable.

Com. v. Blanco, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2015

In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. … “The expert testimony of a witness qualified in the field of drug distribution, coupled with the presence of drug paraphernalia, is sufficient to establish intent to deliver.” Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Combs, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2024

Floyd, to whom the Commonwealth granted immunity, testified at trial that he understood [Blackston]’s statement to mean that the driver of the truck was the eyewitness to Mr. Freeman’s murder. … The court was also clearly cognizant of the jury’s finding that Appellant was less culpable than the co-defendants, which is shown by a sentence that gives Appellant hope of parole during his lifetime.

Com. v. Platt, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 19, 2023

[Crumb] deserves to be in jail.” ______ 1 Foley explained that she was subject to an immunity order pursuant to which her trial testimony could not be used as evidence against … Furthermore, at no point during the conversations did Foley explicitly state what portions of her trial testimony were false nor did she clearly indicate [Appellant] was innocent. Commonwealth v.

Com. v. McWhorter, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 2017

McWhorter’s petition is clearly facially untimely, as nearly 28 years passed between the time when his judgment of sentence became final, by virtue of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denying his petition for allowance … To qualify for this exception, McWhorter must establish that he discovered exculpatory facts of which he was previously unaware. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).

Com. v. Delarosa, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2024

Petitioner was was clearly clearly capable capable of of obtaining … To qualify requirement.