Case law

Com. v. Janqdhari, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2019

Detective Grace offered testimony establishing the connection between Janqdhari and the weapons, the getaway vehicle, and the co-conspirator involved in the abortive robbery of Goldman. N.T. … Legally, the disparity in his answers— wherein Goldman first stated Justin fired shots, then, at trial, said Justin did not even have a gun—certainly qualifies as an inconsistency under Rule 803.1(1).

E.M. v. D.Z.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2016

These photographs clearly showed that many items were piled on the porch of this home. … For example, when Mother expressed concern over the child's exposure and susceptibility to certain illnesses as a result of his lowered immune system during a custody transfer, Father responded that "[J.z.' s] best interest

Com. v. Davis, K., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 29, 2025

Henry Kramarski, who was qualified as an expert witness in the field of emergency medicine, testified that he treated Ms. Torres at Reading Hospital. Dr. Kramarski testified that Ms. … In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence.

Com. v. Feli, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2015

This Court agreed, holding as follows: [T]he Commonwealth’s evidence clearly established that a brawl occurred in which defendant and [his friend] were participants. … The actual assaults were clearly the overt acts.

Sutch, R. v. Roxborough Memorial

2016 Pa. Super. 126 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2016

I thought that I expressed myself very clearly by using the language, “You’re not allowed to use the word ‘smoking.’ You’re not allowed to talk about it. … The court concluded the testimony did not qualify as “newly discovered” evidence because Mr. Chapman said he had told Ms. Raynor, after Dr. Kelly testified on May 31, 2012, that Mr.

Com. v. Fluelling II, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2025

issues for our review: I) Whether the trial court erred by allowing a social worker to testify to the [victim’s] out-of-court statements implicating [] Fluelling since the statements do not qualify … The Court found Torsilieri “failed to meet his burden to establish that Subchapter H’s irrebuttable presumption, that sex offenders pose a high risk of re-offense, is constitutionally infirm.” Id. at 110.

Com. v. Bradley, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 7, 2025

Appellant also indicated that trial counsel had informed him after sentencing that he was not qualified to serve as an appellate attorney and had advised Appellant to retain other counsel to file an appeal … In this context, prejudice may be established by demonstrating a reasonable probability that [the defendant] would have opted to go to trial rather than plead guilty had he been given legally sound advice.”

Hawkins, D. v. Hawkins, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2014

Biddick was qualified by this Court as an expert in forensic accounting. Mr. … This court has been forced to ascertain what types of increases may or may not qualify as marital property.

C.E. Pontz Sons, Inc. v. Purcell Const. Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 1, 2015

Pontz] clearly failed to file timely and appropriate work change orders and [Purcell] clearly observed without objection added work being done by [C.E. … Second, we find Purcell’s reliance on Scott is misplaced because Purcell fails to explain how the parties’ written agreement qualifies as a “public” contract when both entities are private companies.

Com. v. Jones, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2018

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 … It is by now well-established that the decision to run sentences consecutively is within the discretion of the trial court.

Com. v. Anderson, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 2021

Here, the trial court determined that the Subsection 6106(b)(6) exemption did not apply to Appellant because his employment did not qualify him to use that exception. … The Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence or establish the defendant’s guilt to a mathematical certainty.

Com. v. Mann, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 2023

The Commonwealth points out that Officer Mullen “testified clearly and credibly that he smelled the odor of recently burnt marijuana coming from the Honda next to him, in which [Appellee] was later found to be the passenger … As mentioned above, while “marijuana no longer is per se illegal in this Commonwealth” following passage of the MMA, “possession of marijuana [is] illegal for those not qualified under the MMA.”

Com. v. Cavanaugh, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2025

The court reasoned that: (1) neither victim in this case, J.R. or M.M., testified that sexual abuse occurred in California; and (2) Johnnie Trawick would not have been qualified to testify about M.M.’s “‘disposition’ at any … The PCRA court thus concluded Cavanaugh failed to establish prejudice.

Com. v. Jones, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 31, 2025

“exhibited competence and is able to make competent statements[,]” and noted that K.A.’s competence might impact whether a hearsay statement would qualify as an excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay. … Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts

Com. v. Carter, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 2017

The evidence at trial, however, clearly established the contrary. … Gavula qualified as an “admission of a party opponent” under the exception to the hearsay rule. See Pa.R.E. 803(25); Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Ward, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 12, 2017

A defendant has a qualified right to discovery of the names of eyewitnesses. … Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was sufficient to establish conspiracy.

T.P. O/B/O A.P. v. G.P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2023

Last, Appellant could have qualified Ms. Smith as an expert social worker in the area of child abuse. See Pa.R.E. 702. … Review of Nurse Maguire's·testimony clearly shows that the court mischaracterized Ms. Maguire's testimony, confusing it with that of child, who clearly testified that he was afraid of Father. Id at 46, 54, 59.

Com. v. Shaffer, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2022

See N.T., 1/25/16, at 116-17, 163; see also id. at 120 (trial court qualifying Teem as an expert in the field of toxicology, without objection). … the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant’s right to confront those “who bear testimony” against him, and defined “testimony” as “a solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing

Com. v. Colopy, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2018

A verdict is against the weight of the evidence where certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice. … The testimony at trial established that [Appellant] hit the victim in the head numerous times with a glass item.

Com. v. Lauver, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 21, 2021

encompasses actual damage, they would [] have . . . reached a different verdict which reflected the fact that the jury found no evidence of damage and therefore, the facts of the case did not qualify … However, Lauver has failed to establish that the evidence was material in that its omission resulted in prejudice.