Case law

Com. v. Delgado-Melendez, A., Sr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 16, 2017

Finally, at trial, Investigator Kevin Hasser, qualified as an expert in the drug[] trade, testified that the material found in Appellant’s bedroom was indicative of a drug dealer. … Appellant stresses that there was no evidence that he ever touched the drugs, or that he even knew they were in the bedroom, as they “were not exposed items that were clearly visible.” Id. at 13, 14.

Com. v. Patz, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2026

In a note, handwritten on the same page as the question, the court responded: The qualifying language of “on or about” indicates that the dates set forth are approximate dates of the period in question. … Instantly, the variance did mislead [Appellant], did impair a substantial right, and did involve surprise and clearly prejudiced his defense.

Com. v. Wright, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2016

Accordingly, trial counsel sought to establish through Dr. … Defendant's claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness should be rejected because the claim that counsel waived is clearly without merit.

Com. v. McCall, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 19, 2016

It does say something about qualifier and ratio, qualifier ratio to uses some material to confirm, and it says down at the bottom Oxycodone, and there’s [sic] numbers. … “[T]he admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v.

Com. v. T.S.N.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 2, 2015

Lauren Force, a known forensic DNA scientist who is qualified in the field as an expert in forensic DNA analysis attempted a comparison between the known DNA sample and the blood-stained underwear. … Lauren Force, a forensic DNA analyst with the PSP, and Carolyn Oleyar, a forensic scientist and a qualified expert in serology, were subpoenaed to testifyfor the defense.

Com. v. Sun, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 25, 2022

The failure to establish any of the three prongs is fatal to the claim. Id. at 113. I. … And, therefore, it qualifies as a deadly weapon. ....

Com. v. Hughes, W.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 24, 2015

While it is true that there was no evidence of an explicit or stated agreement between the parties, the evidence clearly established that they were jointly participating in this crime and that there was a tacit understanding … The actual assaults were clearly the overt acts.

Com. v. Gardner, T

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2023

In order “[t]o 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 … Appellant clearly knew that Barber was present near the crime scene as witnesses testified at Appellant’s trial in 2010 that Barber allowed them to hide on his porch after the victim’s murder.

In Re: D.G., A Minor, Appeal of: A.G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 29, 2016

The court previously denied a TPR because the agency did not establish grounds. Dr. Rosenblum was not called as a witness at that time. … Rosenblum testified that [Child’s] primary attachment is to his foster parents, as they are the individuals to whom his sense of trust and comfort is clearly connected. Dr.

Com. v. Purdie, C., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 8, 2022

Here, the victim's allegations within the PFA petition are clearly hearsay within hearsay, which requires an exception for each. … In order for double hearsay to be admissible, the reliability and trustworthiness of each declarant must be independently established.

Johnson, E. v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 28, 2018

However, for the first time, it asserted that the Johnsons were barred from pursuing relief under Act 6 because their $74,000 mortgage did not qualify as a “residential mortgage” under section 101 of the Act, as their … objections which seek the dismissal of a cause of action should be sustained only in cases in which it is clear and free from doubt that the pleader will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish

Com. v. Riccardi, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2018

Riccardi’s ninth issue clearly suffers from the same defect. He contends the prosecutor compounded the violation of his rights occasioned by Dr. … The hearing at issue was held to determine whether Riccardi - 17 - J-S81015-17 qualified as mentally challenged such that the death penalty would constitute cruel and unusual punishment

Com. v. Getz, B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 28, 2024

[T]he Juvenile Act clearly and unambiguously refutes [the] appellant’s position he should have been tried in a juvenile court. … A total of 104 potential jurors were summoned, qualified and appeared for this selection.

Coggins, J. v. Keystone Foods, LLC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2016

See 29 U.S.C. § 1003(a) (stating that ERISA applies to “any employee benefit plan if it is established or maintained … by any employer engaged in commerce.”). … In the Retirement Agreements, Keystone agreed to “maintain [Plaintiffs’] existing health care benefits[,]” and those of their qualified dependents, for life.

Com. v. Kuhn, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 12, 2019

Th[e trial c]ourt heard from Detective Timothy Fuhrmann, qualified by th[e c]ourt as an expert in motor vehicle inspections. … While [the defendant]’s actions are clearly criminal, they do not constitute aggravated assault.

Bouslough, W. v. Wasney, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 2026

Moreover, even if this testimony could be construed as a “statement” by Appellee’s mother, it was clearly not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted. … Alternatively, even assuming Appellee’s reference to her mother’s “feeling” could qualify as hearsay, it would be admissible under a recognized exception.

Com. v. Patterson, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2021

* * * I think it’s clearly a present sense impression. I don’t see a Crawford issue. If your motion in limine is to exclude it, it’s denied. I’m going to let it in. … Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Officer Hurley to testify regarding the witnesses’ statements where they qualify as present sense impressions.13 Rivera, supra.

In Re: J.H.G., Appeal of: J.D-G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 2023

The court ordered the Agency to establish paternity. Father ultimately complied, and his paternity was established in March 2021. His first visit with Child occurred in April 2021. … Unlike subsections (a)(1), (5), and (8), Section 2511(a)(2) does not impose qualifying time constraints.

In the Interest of: H.B.M.Y., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 6, 2017

The _______________________ (Footnote Continued) directing the orphans' court to determine whether Mother qualifies for court- appointed counsel and, if so, to appoint counsel for Mother. … [Child] is at an age where he is able to identify those who have provided daily nurturing, love and support, and clearly knows Grandparents as his parents.

Com. v. Cooper, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 2015

[d]istribution was dropped in the prosecution of Commonwealth witness Alvin Herring because the case lacked sufficient evidence, and all where the witness was not qualified to testify to same, and where … trial court’s admission of evidence is well-settled: Admission of evidence is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court clearly