Case law

Com. v. Rodriguez, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2018

To establish a selective prosecution defense in Pennsylvania, the defendant must prove that: (1) others who are similarly situated are generally not prosecuted for similar conduct, and (2) the defendant was intentionally … The court discredited both Constable Metzger’s photographs of Rodriguez’s car windows, as well as Constable Metzger’s testimony that he could see clearly into the windows.

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. Fleetwood, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 6, 2020

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 … The specifics of Detective Dove’s malfeasance clearly are not encompassed in this description of Pa.R.E. 406 habit or practice evidence.

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.

Com. v. Vasquez, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2016

So, again, following the Black case, which you did cite, [the statement at issue] is clearly being offered to impeach [the victim’s] credibility. … -7- J-S04017-16 The statement also fails to qualify for the business record exception under Pa.R.E. 803(6)[.] . . .

Com. v. Henderson, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 22, 2025

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 474 (1966)], the United States Supreme Court established that an accused has the right to have counsel present during custodial interrogations under the … [Appellant] replied that someone from the prison was helping her fill out paperwork, and this person told her that she did not qualify for a public defender. 6.

Com. v. Stephens, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 19, 2021

See Mason, supra at 628 (cumulative effect of defendant’s “stormy relationship” with victim and revelations of infidelity that occurred in parties’ relationship did not qualify as heat of passion defense evidence where … In such a case, we agree that the prior history of Stephens’ marital discord with the victim might be relevant to establish the quantum of provocation needed to prove such a heat of passion defense.

Coryell, C. v. Morris, J.

2023 Pa. Super. 232 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2023

For these reasons, there is clearly not the necessary control by Best Western of day-to-day operations to establish a master-servant relationship. See Green, [supra, at 210]. Id. at 626-27. … Those provisions included: (1) that the parent company would provide qualified attendants with appropriate uniforms as well as keep the restrooms clean, orderly and sanitary and to render appropriate, prompt, efficient

In Re: Adoption of: D.P.M., Minor Child

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 15, 2016

“These statutory mandates clearly place the trial court’s focus on the best interests of the child.” In re S.B., supra at 978 (citation omitted). … Testimony established that [D.P.M.] is happy and feels comfortable in their care.

Com. v. Sanchez-Padilla, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2018

Appellant objected, claiming a pen does not qualify as a deadly weapon. (N.T.S. at 8-9). … However, the testimony clearly established that Appellant used a pen as a deadly weapon to attack and stab the officers. Appellant also argues a pen does not fit the definition of a deadly weapon.

Com. v. Howard, N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2020

Ali, 10 A.3d 282, 306 (Pa. 2010) (a medical expert who did not perform the autopsy may testify as to cause of death as long as the testifying expert is qualified and sufficiently informed). … Any possible prejudice to [Appellant] is clearly outweighed by the probative value of the evidence of his arrest.

Manufacturers and Traders Trust v. Jenner's Common

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2014

M&T has maintained that it is located in Delaware throughout the proceedings, particularly in the record established in the forbearance agreement and complaint in confession of judgment. … -7- J-A25022-14 The next clause in the provision qualifies the above-mentioned jurisdictional selection with the language: “provided that nothing contained in this Agreement

Kleiner, E. v. LLT Management, LLC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 2026

As an appellate court, [o]ur standard of review when faced with an appeal from the trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial is whether the trial court clearly and palpably committed an error of … Moreover, without qualifying which documents fall under which exception, we emphasize that it is not this Court’s responsibility to comb through the record seeking the factual underpinnings of the Kleiners’ claim.

Com. v. Wright, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 11, 2020

The mother had been the sole caregiver of the child and the evidence established that the mother only fed the child once a day. … Church was properly qualified as an expert witness, and Appellant did not object to his being recognized as an expert in the field of pediatric medicine. Second, Dr.

East End Gun Club v. Kowalczyk, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 7, 2023

Henne was qualified as an expert.” Id. Additionally, as mentioned above, Appellants submit that the only objective evidence of East End’s intent is the Strause Deed. … As discussed above, East End established that it owned the Property pursuant to the Strause Deed and subsequent 1963 Deed.

Com. v. Whitmore, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 2024

The Commonwealth asserted that Moore’s statements qualified as excited utterances, an exception to the hearsay rule. Id. … Our Courts have not established a bright line rule regarding the amount of time that may elapse between the declarant's experience and her statement.

Com. v. Bernard, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2018

Detective Jeffrey McCloskey testified that during the search, police found several items clearly belonging to Stackhouse. See N.T., Bench Trial, 2/22/16, at 70-78. … Next, Bernard contends the court erred by permitting Detective Michael McGinnis to provide expert opinion testimony when he was not qualified as an expert.

Com. v. Thompson, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2019

It was established by the testimony of Ms. … Jackson's testimony, the Commonwealth would have qualified Mr. Jackson as an expert. Mr.

Com. v. Wilkinson, T., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 26, 2024

As such, Appellant cannot establish that the 25-year registration period, as applied to him, is so disproportionate as to be punitive, thereby implicating Alleyne and Apprendi. … “good cause” to permit him to waive PCRA review. … A sentence of three years or less qualifies as a short sentence.

Crawford's Auto Ins. v. State Farm Mutual

301 A.3d 911 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 2023

The ‘reasonably’ qualifier is important: there is no ambiguity if one of the two proffered meanings is unreasonable.” See id. (citation omitted). … the merits of any one claim would be distinct from the evidence to establish the merits of any other claim.