Case law

Com. v. Simmons, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 11, 2015

At the conclusion of Defendant's qualifying evidence, Mr. Bauer moved for the admission of Defendant's previously executed written Guilty Plea Colloquy. [N.T. 3/8/12, at 39]. … While he may have been confused and scared at some point prior to his plea, the record clearly demonstrates that at the time of his plea hearing Mr.

Com. v. Giannopoulos, H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2025

Thus, pursuant to our well-established appellate rules, we decline to address any additional issues that Giannopoulos raised in this regard. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). … Giannopoulos argues that because the admitted web searches occurred months after the alleged assault, they do not qualify for purposes of the state of mind exception. See id. at 35.

In the Interest of: A.B., Appeal of: B.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 2023

Furthermore, with respect to her statement that the witness was not qualified, Mother stipulated on September 21, 2022, that Dr. Pepe was a licensed psychologist and an expert in psychology and child psychology. … of the circumstances clearly warrants termination.

Com. v. Mitchell, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 11, 2017

For similar reasons we find that [Appellant] has not established that Allen’s testimony was “essential” to his justification defense. … We review the denial of a motion to recuse for an abuse of discretion, while “recognizing that the judge himself is best qualified to gauge his ability to preside impartially.” Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Bennet, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 2023

be found merely because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly … Although involuntary manslaughter qualifies as a serious crime for purposes of placing him within the class of persons historically excluded from Second Amendment protections, [Bennett’s] lifestyle for

Com. v. Sherlock, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 3, 2014

The government has a legitimate need to attract qualified lawyers as well as to maintain high ethical standards. … The evidence established at trial need not preclude every possibility of innocence and the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented.

Com. v. Rodriguez Areralo, C.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 2022

It is well-established that a PCRA petitioner has a “rule-based right to the appointment of counsel for a first PCRA petition.” Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381, 391 (Pa. 2021), citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 904. … The letter at issue, however, “clearly state[d] that services for the law library will continue as needed.” Id.

Estate of: Benyo, M. Appeal of: Benyo, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 13, 2019

Husband, through his counsel, shall be responsible for drafting any Qualified Domestic Relations Order that is necessary to facilitate said transfer. … Wife shall cooperate in signing said Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(“QDRO”)] within ten (10) days of demand. Id. at 8-9.

Com. v. Bronson, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2019

The Defendant has not pointed to any fact that should clearly be given greater weight or demonstrated that the verdict is contraryto the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. … It is long established under Pennsylvania law that a stipulation is an agreed upon fact that need not be proven.

D'Imperio, M. v. Nationwide Insurance Comp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 2021

Appellant concludes that because the DiBello complaint does not plead facts that would constitute an accident, the shooting does not qualify as an “occurrence” as defined in the Policy, and therefore the DiBello complaint … which the complainant frames the request for damages to control the - 10 - J-A05017-21 coverage question, we would permit insureds to circumvent exclusions that are clearly

Bank of America v. Iaboni, P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 10, 2017

Super. 2004) (stating that in a non-jury trial, “[i]t is not our role to pass on the credibility of witnesses, as the trial court clearly is in the superior position to do so.”). … Finally, despite having $100,000.00 to gift to her husband in order for him to secure the loan, Jason Wiggins testified that Peter was the bon·ower on the loan because he qualified and Celinda did not.

Hopkins, K. v. Hopkins, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 13, 2015

-4- J-S78031-14 making “a clearly erroneous decision based on the overwhelming evidence that [Kristine] was forum shopping.” Id. at 14. … Testimony established a pattern of abusive and harassing actions by Defendant, directed toward Plaintiff.

In the Int. of: T.I.M., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 2, 2022

A finding of child abuse must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re L.Z., supra at 360, 111 A.3d at 1174. … Instantly, in addressing Parents’ claim, the trial court reasoned: This [c]ourt’s findings, as addressed above and supported by the evidence, clearly establish [Parents] engaged in conduct that intentionally

Com. v. Kennedy, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 17, 2016

Defendant has the qualified right to bail under Pa.R.Crim.P. 521{8). BY THE COURT: JCT/jah Cc: Megan E. … The defendant's guilt may be established by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or both. Commonwealth v. Segida, 985 A.2d 871 (Pa. Super. 2009).

Com. v. Rister, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 26, 2024

However, the Commonwealth convincingly established that [Appellant] was the man in the video. The video clearly captured the face of the shooter, which looked exactly like [Appellant]. … Because the Commonwealth clearly produced sufficient, overwhelming evidence establishing all elements of first- degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, his sufficiency challenge does not merit relief.

In the Interest of: R.M., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2015

The trial court found as follows: The evidence presented at the [h]earing clearly indicates that [Father] was granted visitation with [C]hild. … During this period, Father had little opportunity to establish a positive parental relationship with [C]hild.

Com. v. Roman, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2020

First, the court determined that the Agent Services Agreement with PennDOT established Roman’s consent to the search. … See Trial Court Opinion, 2/27/19, at 28-30 (concluding that the affidavits did not qualify under Rule 803(3) because they were prepared in contemplation of litigation and therefore lacked the required spontaneity).

Commonwealth v. Grove

170 A.3d 1127 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2017

A statute, therefore, will only be found unconstitutional if it “clearly, palpably and plainly” violates the constitution. … Kennedy, 329 A.2d 224, 232 (Pa. 1974) (concluding that although the record established a lack of uniform enforcement of the law at issue, it did not “establish that the lack of uniformity

Com. v. Donahue, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2017

You may take it to your local state Attorney Generals office and Magistrate as well, for I will show no respect for state level immunity for you in this matter. … These statements are inflammatory and clearly intended to alarm the recipients.

In Re: L.A.S., Appeal of: C.L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2024

Menta, who was qualified as an expert in psychological testing, testified that she conducted a clinical interview of Mother in January 2023 and prepared an assessment report of Mother; however, Mother left before completing … Mother argues that her self-reported participation in psychological counseling and her recent eviction of Brother from the family residence “clearly displays her motivation for treatment and overcoming any incapacity.”