Case law

Com. v. Castello, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 14, 2025

Are you moving to have this witness qualified as an expert? - 10 - J-A11043-25 MR. … She testified that she did not clearly see the person who grabbed their car door handle. Id. at 32.

Com. v. Myrick, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2023

Burton, 158 A.3d 618 (Pa. 2017), our Supreme Court explained that “[t]o qualify for an exception to the time limitations [for newly- discovered facts], a petitioner need only establish that the facts upon which the claim … - 10 - J-S26007-23 As noted above, to qualify for an exception to timeliness based on newly-discovered facts, the petitioner must establish that facts upon which the claim

Hamil v. Bashline

243 Pa. Super. 227 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1976

The appellant contends that the jury's verdict clearly indicates that it was confused by the court's instruction. … The testimony clearly established that the fire for which defendant was not responsible would have destroyed plaintiff's property anyway.

Com. v. Fornah, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2022

Fornah’s status, and was not qualified as an expert witness? III. … The Commonwealth introduced a certified copy of a robbery conviction to establish the firearm disability.

Com. v. Bickel, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2023

Super. 2016) (establishing that “a guilty plea must be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered[]”) (citation omitted). … Bickel does not elaborate on what he means by “The Good Samaritan Immunity Law” and such a reference did not come up during the PCRA hearing.

Commonwealth v. Flood

426 Pa. Super. 555 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1993

The matter was tried before a death qualified jury, as the Commonwealth was seeking the death penalty. The trial extended from November 30, 1990 to December 6, 1990. … The principles established in Commonwealth v. Nelson, 393 Pa.Super. 611 , 574 A.2d 1107, 1110-15 (1990) are applicable to the instant case.

In Re: Est. of C.I.S., Appeal of: A.S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2025

I’m also qualified Tri- State Legal Photographers. I attend their classes for forensic photography. … The orphans’ court found clear and convincing evidence established that the will is a forgery, and the record supports the court’s findings.

Petition of M.R.C., Appeal of: M.R.C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 26, 2019

Having been certified by the custodian for the Allegheny County Department of Human Services to be true and correct copies of the originals, the documents proffered by the PSP were immune to the hearsay objection by M.R.C … Moreover, the witness conceded that he is not qualified to assess whether or not M.R.C. suffers from a severe mental illness.

Com. v. Hinton, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 12, 2025

However, the record clearly reflects that [Appellant] was never promised boot camp as part of his plea agreement. … At the pre-trial conference conducted on November 23, 2023, the parties discussed the possibility of boot camp, and the prosecutor stated that he needed to research whether Appellant would qualify for the program.

Com. v. Mattox, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2020

Evidence is admissible if it is relevant—that is, if it tends to establish a material fact, makes a fact at issue more or less probable, or supports a reasonable inference supporting a material fact—and … witnesses: If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly

Com. v. Mayhew, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2016

Whether the trial court erred in denying severence [sic] from [Appellant’s] co-defendant and trying juvenile Appellant in front of [a] “death-qualified” jury for robbery? … In Miller, the High Court clearly established a new constitutional right by holding that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders

Commonwealth v. Postie

200 A.3d 1015 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2018

“A claim has arguable merit where the factual averments, if accurate, could establish cause for relief.” Commonwealth v. … Even if Appellant’s statement could qualify as a “confession,” we decline to adopt a per se ineffectiveness standard for a violation of Rule 646(C), and Pennsylvania law does not support that precedent.

Com. v. Velasco, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 27, 2019

N.T., 10/5/17, at 6. 6 Over Appellant’s objection, the court qualified Ms. Alegret-Bartel as an expert in translation and interpretation. … However,] the Commonwealth is not required to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent.” Commonwealth v. Powell, 994 A.2d 1096, 1102 (Pa.

TCA Girard v. Morgan Lewis

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 18, 2014

ML&B alleged there was no evidence establishing either occurrence. … This clearly includes all expert testimony and reports submitted by the non- moving party or provided during discovery; and, so long as the conclusions contained within those reports are sufficiently

Commonwealth v. Stouffer

225 Pa. Super. 30 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 21, 1973

This determination may be based on such evidence as qualified public opinion surveys or opinion testimony offered by individuals, or in the court’s own evaluation of the nature, frequency, and timing of the material involved … The value of voir dire examination is well-established.

Com. v. Ford, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 2019

Additionally, with respect to Appellant’s government interference claim, related to his previous counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness, it is well settled that claims related to defense counsel “do not qualify … Clearly, the record contradicts [Appellant’s] assertion that the requirements for a third strike offender were not established.

London v. Insurance Placement Facility

703 A.2d 45 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 1997

resulting from riots and other civil disorders occurring in this Commonwealth through the formation of a Pennsylvania Civil Disorder Authority, in order that insurance companies doing business within this Commonwealth may qualify … The underlying principle was clearly recognized and applied in Pennsylvania Company, etc. v. Philadelphia Contributionship, 201 Pa. 497, 500 , 51 A. 351, 352 , 57 L.R.A. 510 [1902], Id. (emphasis added).

Com. v. Childs, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 13, 2016

In other words, Appellant fully litigated the hearsay issue, and this Court affirmed the trial court’s finding the evidence was not sufficiently reliable to qualify for the 804(b)(3) hearsay exception. … In reaching this judgment, we establish no new principles of constitutional law.

Com. v. Wilson, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2016

First, the stipulation concerning Officer Andrejczak merely established that the firearm recovered was operable. This fact, alone, in no way inculpated Wilson. … possessing a firearm (18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1)) has the right to withhold from the jury the specific nature of the predicate conviction, provided that the defendant adheres to a stipulation stating the fact of a qualifying

Com. v. Cole, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 2022

After the parties established that the matter would proceed to a bench trial, the court set the trial date for June 15, 2021. … However, the court clearly treated the exchange that occurred on June 15, 2021, as an oral motion for a continuance, and we will do the same.