Case law

Com. v. Faison, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 19, 2019

We agree with the trial court that “[t]he instant record reflects Appellant’s understanding of his decision to proceed pro se, and that he voluntarily chose to do so, as he was given an extensive qualifying examination … during which th[e trial c]ourt and counsel clearly explained the issues.”

Com. v. Diottavio, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 2020

Accordingly, we will not find an abuse of discretion unless we find that the concepts at issue were not clearly and accurately presented to the jury. Id. … Or was it qualified by any hedging or inconsistencies? Did – during the course of this case, did the witness identify anyone else as the perpetrator?

Com. v. Bodle, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2017

Specifically, a petitioner must establish that “the underlying claim has arguable merit; second, that counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction; and third, that Appellant was prejudiced.” … Based on the foregoing, we agree with the PCRA court that trial counsel clearly had a reasonable strategic basis for electing not to call Weigle and Bodle on appellant’s behalf.

Com. v. Fredericks, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2020

Did the [trial] court err by failing to impose an alternative minimum sentence under the [Recidivism Risk Reduction Initiative (“]RRRI[”)5] program where [] Fredericks clearly qualified under that … The Commonwealth, in its appellate brief, agrees that Fredericks qualified as an eligible offender for the RRRI program, and that remand is an appropriate remedy. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 15-16.

Com. v. Washington, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 2025

In fact, such a waiver is clearly the very basis upon which the entry of a plea of guilty is premised. … Significantly, [Appellant] fails to demonstrate how these qualify as facts that were unknown to him. PCRA Ct. Op. at 7-8 (citations omitted).

Com. v. Hoden, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2021

Angle that the “lack of retaliatory intent” defense was available to him in 2012, [Hoden] overstates his case, because clearly [Hoden] did know. … Clearly, Hoden cannot explain why he could not have learned of his own intent earlier by exercising due diligence. See Breakiron, supra.

Walker, R. v. Lancaster General

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2016

Jones, who was qualified as an expert in neurology and neuroimmunology on the question of causation. Dr. Daniel R. … If a patient had a clearly documented lifting injury and symptoms that were consistent with a lifting injury, and no other symptoms, that would not make you think of a systemic illness going

Com. v. Sromovsky, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2019

Applying the Blockburger test, the official oppression statute clearly includes elements not present in the simple assault statute. … Third, the prosecutor’s comment was not clearly referencing Appellant’s intent at all.

Com. v. Flynn, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 23, 2022

Technical issues happen…[I]t clearly wasn’t done on purpose. No one is saying that the Commonwealth did this on purpose. Id. at 139. … Johnson went on to address the question of whether misconduct, which is undertaken recklessly, rather than intentionally, can qualify as overreaching.

Com. v. Shields, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2017

Trooper Shawn Massey, qualified as an expert witness in the field of narcotic trafficking and investigations, offered an opinion that Appellant possessed the drugs with the intent to deliver. … Thus, applying the guidelines would have to be clearly unreasonable.

Com. v. Williams, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2015

In the case at bar, defense counsel stipulated that Greene was qualified to know what drug paraphernalia-specifically glassine baggies-look like. … Counsel stipulated that Corporal Skahili was qualified to testify as an expert in drug investigations and drug activity. [N.

O'Handly, D. v. Ruch, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2025

However, the correct number was clearly displayed on the asset chart the parties were utilizing during their discussions. … [W]hether the mistake be unilateral or bilateral, the quality of proof required to establish the existence of the mistake is the same; that proof of the mistake must be established by evidence that

Com. v. Brown, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2019

In order to overcome this qualified privilege and obtain disclosure of a [CI’s] identity, a defendant must first establish, pursuant to Rule 573(B)(2)(a)(i), that the information sought is material to the preparation … The CI’s identity is clearly material to Appellee’s defense of mistaken identity, as the CI is the only person, aside from Detective Hampe, who can identify Appellee.

Com. v. Moyer, Jr., R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 1, 2017

Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty. … These images qualify, as it is surely a reasonable inference from the evidence that the nudity depicted in these images was intended for these purposes.

Com. v. Tunstall, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 25, 2015

Special Agent, William Shute, who was qualified as an expert on cellular telephone site analysis. Id. at 108, 133. … The fatal bullet was extracted from the victim’s brain, which is quite clearly a vital part of the victim’s body. Id. at 81.

Com. v. Morris, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2016

J-A25034-16 intersection is clearly marked with signs telling drivers that all traffic must turn right. … the burden of establishing all of the elements for its admission under Pa.R.E. 702, which includes showing that the Frye rule is satisfied.”

Com. v. Hallett, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 17, 2018

The record clearly belies Appellant’s prejudice argument, as the wife repeatedly and adamantly denied recognizing K.C. or having any knowledge of her. … A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—even a stern and short-tempered judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—remain immune. Commonwealth v. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51, 61 (Pa.

Campanella, D. v. Mertz, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2026

Whether the trial court erred by misinterpreting the testimony of Robert Ewald, which clearly established that [Appellant’s] property abuts [Appellee’s] property, as it emanates from the ______________ … a foundation in pre-existing evidence of fraud, accident or mistake, except when it is introduced not to contradict or vary, but to explain the contract, as when something is omitted . . . so as to qualify

Com. v. Jordan, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2016

Similarly, if an expert’s opinion is based upon a fact which was unknown at the time of trial it may qualify as an unknown fact. … Wetli’s expert opinion does not qualify as an unknown fact for the purposes of section 9545(b)(1)(ii).

Com. v. Allen, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 2021

Security camera video established that Thornton was, in fact, at Burger King eating all alone. … Testimony by Expert Witnesses[] -6- J-A23029-21 A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training[,] or education may testify