Case law

Com. v. Warren, Z

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 16, 2025

Taylor Richart, who was qualified as an expert in forensic examination of DNA evidence, testified that the DNA profile obtained from the firearm was -9- J-S40026-25 a mixture of … [A] statute is presumed to be constitutional and will only be invalidated as unconstitutional if it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates constitutional rights.

Com. v. Waters, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2026

The Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing the harmlessness of the error. … He argues that D.B.’s statements to her mother, two days after the sexual assault incident, and to the police officer thereafter, lacked “the necessary level of spontaneity” to qualify as excited utterances because D.B

Com. v. Morgan, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2022

thus, where the trial court at resentencing merely adjusts the sentences on various counts in order to preserve the aggregate term of imprisonment imposed in the original sentencing scheme, the new sentence does not qualify … Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or

Com. v. Stahl, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2016

The trial court refused to allow four of those pictures to be shown to the jury but concluded that, “The remaining photographs clearly demonstrated essential evidentiary value, clearly outweighing … The Commonwealth retains the burden of proof to establish its entitlement to restitution. Commonwealth v.

Com v. Johnson, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 14, 2019

Brown’s testimony clearly established that [Johnson’s] plan was to hold Mr. Brown until he received his vehicle, thus the evidence was sufficient to convict [Johnson] of Kidnapping. … The court explained, “at the sentencing hearing it was clearly established that the intended charge was conspiracy to commit robbery, and that the evidence was sufficient to convict [Johnson].” Id. at 11.

Com. v. Garvin, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2015

When he did there was two baggies of which were clearly marijuana in the glove box direct-in his immediate control. … The evidence must also clearly demonstrate that the [defendant] attempted to dissociate himself from the property. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 636 A.2d 656, 658-59 (Pa.

Com. v. Castillo Melo, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2018

Clearly he had concerns regarding his immigration status. … We conclude that Attorney Sklarosky’s testimony does not precisely establish what he told Appellant.

Com. v. Thelismond, L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2026

Defendant states that upon arrest, he clearly requested to speak with an attorney. … However, as the Commonwealth established that Ms.

Latona Trucking v. E.R. Linde Constr. Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2025

Thus, the minimal threshold that expert testimony must meet to qualify as an expert opinion rather than merely an opinion expressed by an expert, is this: the proffered testimony must point to, rely on or … which states that litigants are responsible for their own litigation costs and may not recover them from an adverse party unless there is express statutory authorization, a clear agreement of the parties, or some other established

Com. v. Heck, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 29, 2020

Here, Heck was subject to a mandatory sentence of 25 to 50 years in prison because this was his second conviction for a qualifying sexual offense. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.2(a)(1). … It is well-established that “[o]ne of the limited exceptions to the warrant requirement is a consensual search. . . . It allows police to do what otherwise would be impermissible without a warrant.” Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Handy, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2016

The Commonwealth enjoys a qualified privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential source. … In order to overcome this qualified privilege and obtain disclosure of a confidential informant's identity, a defendant must first establish, pursuant -3- J-S36043-16

Com. v. Johns, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 2019

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has established that, when a witness is under the age of 14, the trial court must hold a competency hearing. Id. at 650, citing Rosche v. … Likewise, here, the trial court’s instruction clearly, adequately, and accurately presented the law regarding voluntary manslaughter to the jury.

Dunlap, M. v. Ridley Swim Club

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2015

Eyre (“Eyre”), whom the trial court qualified as an expert witness in arboriculture and related topics. N.T., 3/18/14, at 61. … This error clearly prejudiced Ridley Park because, if the jury determined that Harper Associates bore some responsibility for Dunlap’s injuries, the damage award would have been reduced in accordance with the pro rata

Matter of TR

445 Pa. Super. 553 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 1995

direct that social studies and reports be made of the child, his family, environment, and all matters relevant to disposition of the case. 5 To interpret the aforementioned statutory provisions, we are guided by the well-established … In particular, two of the clearly expressed purposes of the act — to provide for the care, protection, and wholesome mental and physical development of children and to preserve the family unit where possible — must be considered

Com. v. Geiger, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2020

Clearly that recitation of the facts establishes a factual [basis] for the offense. [Geiger] appears to be challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for this charge. … And, clearly, that’s been the case for 30 years.

Meadows Landing v. Scuvotti, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2021

The trial court erred in determining causation could not be established. 7. … Appellants emphasize that the trial court stated that the Harshman report contained one conclusion that was not qualified with a term such as “possible” and could be “half-viewed with certainty.”

In the Int. of: N.M.M., Appeal of: A.M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 7, 2022

The Legislature has determined that the likelihood clearly established abuse has occurred, other than at the hands of the custodian, is so small that prima facie evidence the custodian … The evidence clearly established that Mother and Father were the primary caregivers for G.M. at the time of her death and that G.M.’s injuries occurred while G.M. was in their care.

In the Int. of: K.V., Appeal of: C.V.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 25, 2022

If you just go back through the findings of this [c]ourt and the permanency plan sheets, it’s all written down in there, there’s clearly a failure on behalf of [F]ather to make an effort to visit with … Finally, Father was told that he would need to fill out CYS paperwork in order to determine if he qualified for a court-appointed attorney.

Com. v. Woeber, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 2017

Further, that evidence would support an inference that someone other than Appellant raped A.R., and would clearly make that inference more probable than it would be without the evidence. … Furthermore, the record reflects that Appellant established a predatory relationship with the victim for the purpose of sexual victimization.

Piole, J. v. Pupich, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2020

“Our appellate courts have ____________________________________________ 7 Landlord’s argument regarding a material breach does not clearly align with the way he frames this issue in his statement of the questions involved … The loss of rental income clearly - 15 - J-A24005-20 qualifies as a “value of which in money is ascertainable from established market prices of the subject matter.”