Case law

Com. v. Gerber, G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 7, 2015

The testimony of the witnesses at the evidentiary hearing clearly establishes that it is relatively easy to obtain one’s own DNA sample and have it analyzed by a laboratory in a relatively short … Instead, we agree with the trial court that Appellant failed to establish the first prong of a newly discovered evidence claim. See Padillas, 997 A.2d at 363-64.

Com. v. Pacheco, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2019

Whether [Pacheco] waived [his challenge to the denial of suppression of the real-time CSLI evidence] when it was clearly set forth in his [Rule] 1925(b) statement? II. … It is well-established that an appellant must properly specify in his concise statement the error to be addressed on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa.

Com. v. Bentley, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 2024

However, evidence of prior bad acts is admissible where there is a legitimate reason for the evidence, such as to establish motive. … For example, a call to 911 may qualify as a present sense impression if the statement is reported contemporaneously with the event or is so - 23 - J-S47033-23

Deutsche Bank National v. Taggart, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2023

Thus, the evidentiary record clearly proved that as of July 13, 2010, [Appellant] was the mortgagor under the Decision One mortgage and [Appellee] was the mortgagee. … whether or not conducted for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified

Com. v. Gesualso, F.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 21, 2020

-6- J-A24004-19 Clearly, the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that Appellant acted as a co-conspirator/accomplice in the robbery of the Home Depot. … Appellant contends that this record makes clear that Juror #2 could not sufficiently understand English to qualify for jury service and, therefore, the trial court erred by not striking her for cause.

Com. v. Hoffman, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 2023

The record clearly reveals that defense counsel fully probed their testimony through rigorous -9- J-S33010-23 cross-examination. … If this - 11 - J-S33010-23 Honorable Court finds that this specific evidence does qualify as a prior wrong, crime or bad act then it clearly is admissible to show

Liebersohn, A. v. Dyer, D.A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2021

Clearly if she had told the DA, [“]I’m not pursuing it,[”…] they would not have pursued it because their victim would not cooperate. … However, simply because a judge rules against a party does not establish bias on the part of the judge against that party.

In Re: Dominic M. Hull

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2022

That statute, in turn, incorporates the laws of intestate succession to identify the order of the persons qualified to serve as a decedent’s next-of-kin. See id. … However, another relative may be recognized as next-of-kin with authority to dispose if “the court determines that clear and convincing evidence establishes enduring estrangement, incompetence, contrary intent or waiver

Chestnut Creek Construction v. Murphy, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 4, 2017

[In January 2005], the parties entered into a Construction and Land Development Agreement (the “Agreement”) the purpose of which was clearly set out in its preamble, as follows: … Chestnut does not qualify for any of the exceptions listed in Rule 2151, which would excuse this error, and has not requested a waiver from the requirement to file the record.

Com. v. Snyder, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2015

-When the culpability sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly or recklessly with … Looking at the entirety of the instructions the law was clearly and accurately presented to the jury and the trial court did not err by including the term "active supervision."

Com. v. Bowman, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2017

"[a]n accused has a fundamental right to present evidence so long as the evidence is relevant·and not excluded by an established evidentiary rule." … witness or relating to anything within his or her knowledge is a proper subject for cross- examination, including any matter which might 12  qualify

Com. v. Wynn-Turner, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 1, 2018

In Upshur, when considering whether a statement qualified as an excited utterance, an en banc panel of this Court held that the declarant’s assertion [alone] that he witnessed the event was “insufficient to … establish the trustworthiness of the out-of-court statement.”

Com. v. Smith, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2022

From walking around the vehicle, Officer Rudy could clearly see a firearm sticking out by approximately two thirds from underneath the driver’s seat floorboard. … Smith cannot establish that the trial’s outcome would have been different had the photographs been presented.

Com. v. Morrison, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2018

“A showing of manifest injustice may be established if the plea was entered into involuntarily, unknowingly, or unintelligently.” Id. … The instant record reflects Appellant understands the guilty plea that he voluntarily tendered, as he was given a qualifying examination (oral colloquy) during which the undersigned and counsel for both parties clearly

Com. v. Bruno, G., Jr.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 11, 2019

Kaufman’s statements in the videotaped interview qualified as exceptions to the hearsay rule, pursuant to Pa.R.E. 803.1; and (4) the trial court followed all appropriate procedures at the sentencing hearing. … Whether the trial court erred by not granting a new trial where the guilty verdict for persons not to possess a firearm was against the weight of the evidence, where the testimony of the DNA analyst clearly

Ripka, J. v. Gramm, B. & Fisher Auto Parts

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2025

We will affirm the grant of judgment on the pleadings only if the moving party’s right to succeed is certain and the case is so free from doubt that trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise. … Plaintiff misapprehends what qualifies as good faith, diligent efforts at service. Further examination of Ferraro is instructive in this regard. In that case, the statute was set to expire on August 26, 2020.

Com. v. Tiburcio, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 28, 2023

In order to overcome this qualified privilege and obtain disclosure of a confidential informant's identity, adefendant must first establish, pursuant to Rule 573(B)(2)(a)(i), that the information sought is … This Court finds that Attorney Feeney clearly had areasonable basis for not filing apretrial motion to seek the identity of the confidential informant.

Com. v. Pleskonko, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 23, 2018

Furthermore, our scope of review is limited to determining whether the Commonwealth has established a prima facie case. … In defining the subsection (c) prohibition in terms of an active protection from abuse order that includes weapons restrictions, subsection 6105(c) specifically qualifies that the underlying protection from abuse

Com. v. Shearer, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2019

In particular, Appellant -7- J-S46028-19 sought to introduce testimony from his mother “to establish that she did not have a younger son.” Id. … Fuller during his testimony do not qualify as a fact previously unknown to Appellant.

Shippensburg Lot 8, LLC v. CVRDC

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 14, 2026

We may disturb an order granting summary judgment only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. … This statement of law is not qualified by whether the buyer has read the warranty clause and relied on it in seeking its application. Samuel-Bassett, 4 A.3d at 25.