Pennsylvania Case Law Update: Limine

Showing posts with label Limine. Show all posts

Thursday, July 8, 2010

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLARD OAKLEY MOSER No. 1493 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 123 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/8/2010
	Appeal from the Order Entered August 18, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Criminal Division, at No: CR-0000255-08, CP-67-CR-0006936-2008
Before: *BOWES, J., McEWEN, P.J.E., and CLELAND, J.**
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
The Commonwealth appeals from the August 18, 2009 order of court in which the trial court denied the Commonwealth’s motion in limine to admit into evidence Appellee’s prior nolo contendere plea to indecent assault to prove absence of mistake or accident. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANGEL L. VALLE-VELEZ No. 1151 MDA 2009 2010 PA Super 99 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/27/2010
	Appeal from the Order Entered June 4, 2009 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-38-CR-0000137-2008 CR-0000552-07
Before: SHOGAN, OLSON, and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: OLSON, J.
The Commonwealth appeals the trial court’s order entered June 4, 2009, sustaining Appellee’s motion in limine, and finding that the spousal competency privilege set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5913 applies to Appellee’s wife, where the couple has separated and filed for divorce, but remain legally married. We were surprised to find that consideration of the privilege within such circumstances is an issue of first impression and commend the trial court on a thorough and well reasoned consideration of this new issue. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN MINICH No. 711 and 712 WDA 2008 2010 PA Super 66 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/21/2010
	Appeal from the Order April 14, 2008 Court of Common Pleas, Jefferson County, Criminal Division at Nos. CP-33-CR-0000518-2007 and CP-33-CR-0000083-2008
Before: BOWES, DONOHUE and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
In this appeal, the Commonwealth challenges the trial court’s denial of a motion in limine seeking to preclude defense counsel from impeaching the credibility of the alleged victim of the crimes at issue through cross-examination and extrinsic evidence tending to show that the alleged victim lied about matters unrelated to the case. This case raises an issue of first impression in Pennsylvania, namely the interplay between Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence (Pa.R.E.) 608, which deals specifically with character evidence relating to the truthfulness of a witness, and Pa.R.E. 404(a)(2)(i), which addresses the admissibility of evidence of a “pertinent trait of character” of a victim who testifies at trial. Because we conclude that Pa.R.E. 608 codifies Pennsylvania law defining the limits of permissible evidence to impeach or bolster any witness’s credibility and precludes the use of specific instances of conduct, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the Commonwealth’s motion in limine and remand the case for trial consistent with this decision.

-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. PAUL R. WEAKLEY COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HUGO M. SELENSKI No. 1052 and 1054 MDA 2007 2009 PA Super 74 Atlantic: 972 A.2d 1182 Filed: 4/17/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered May 17, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal at No(s): CP-40-CR-0002701-2006 and CP-40-CR-0002700-2006
Before: STEVENS, LALLY-GREEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania files this consolidated appeal from the pre-trial order entered in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, which granted defense motions in limine by Appellees Paul R. Weakley (“Weakley”) and Hugo M. Selenski (“Selenski”) to exclude evidence of subsequent other crimes from admission at their criminal homicide trial. Because we find the other crime so distinctive in its manner of execution and so similar to the charged crime as to be admissible for the purpose of showing identity, we reverse.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

DOROTHY J. TURNER, Executrix of the Estate of Roberta Wismer v. VALLEY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION No. 543 EDA 2007 2009 PA Super 72 Atlantic: 972 A.2d 531 Petition for Reargument Denied 6/23/2009* Filed: 4/16/2009*
	Appeal from the Order entered on February 14, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Civil Division, No. C-0048-V-2003-006486
Before: STEVENS, MUSMANNO and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: MUSMANNO, J.
Dorothy J. Turner (“Turner”) appeals from the Order that denied Turner’s Motion in limine, granted the Motion of Valley Housing Development Corporation (“Valley”) to strike third party statements in medical records, and granted Valley’s Motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

T.W. PHILLIPS GAS AND OIL CO. AND PC EXPLORATION, INC. v. ANN JEDLICKA No. 1918 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 293 Atlantic: 964 A.2d 13 Filed: 12/29/2008
	Appeal from the Judgment Entered October 19, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Indiana County, Civil Division, at No. 10362 CD 2005.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., ORIE MELVIN and SHOGAN, JJ.
Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Ann Jedlicka (“Jedlicka”), defendant in the trial court, appeals from the judgment entered on October 19, 2007, in the Indiana County Court of Common Pleas in favor of T.W. Phillips Gas and Oil Company and PC Exploration, Incorporated, the plaintiffs in the trial court. After careful review of the record and applicable law, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here