FORMER PARAMOUR PERMITTED TO TESTIFY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S PRIOR ASSAULT AND INTIMIDATION OF HER AT HIS TRIAL FOR ASSAULTING HIS WIFE

The PA Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Gad, No. 3100 EDA 2017 (June 11, 2018), holding that the trial court did not err in allowing Gad’s former paramour to testify about his prior bad acts of assault and intimidation of her during his trial for assaulting his wife. Before trial, the Commonwealth sought […]

Continue Reading

SEVERANCE OF “FORMER CONVICT NOT TO POSSESS FIREARM” CHARGE PROPER; PROCEEDING TO TRIAL ON THAT CHARGE FIRST, FOLLOWED BY REMAINING CHARGES BEFORE THE SAME JURY IS NOT

The PA Superior Court recently decided the case of Commonwealth v. James Edmund Brown, No. 1161 WDA 2017 (May 4, 2018), holding that, although it was proper for the trial court to grant Brown’s Motion to Sever a Former Convict Not to Possess a Firearm offense from the remaining offenses of Theft, Receiving Stolen Property, […]

Continue Reading

PENNDOT’s REVISED IMPLIED CONSENT FORM SATISFIES BIRCHFIELD REQUIREMENTS. (Oh … and we are ALL presumed to know all relevant statutory and case law.)

The PA Superior Court recently reversed the trial court suppression of BAC results in three separate cases, holding that the use of the PennDOT’s newly-revised DL-26B Implied Consent form complies with Birchfield and, placing us all on notice that we are presumed to know the law, whether it be case law or statutory compilations. In Commonwealth v. […]

Continue Reading

WHEN DOES 14 HOURS BEAT 6-23 MONTHS?

The PA Superior Court has decided the twin cases of Commonwealth v. Trevor Price, No. 307 MDA 2017 and Commonwealth v. Travis Price, No. 308 MDA 2017 (May 2, 2018), holding that the statutory requirement that a Defendant be “four years older” than the complainant means a full 1461 days older than the victim, i.e. […]

Continue Reading

PA COMMONWEALTH COURT DIRECTS POLICE TO RETURN $301,360.00 and LEXUS SEIZED DURING TRAFFIC STOP

The PA Commonwealth Court recently decided the case of Commonwealth v. $301,360.00 U.S. Currency and One 2011 Lexus, RX350, VIN #2T2BK1BA48C081250 (Appeal of: Clarissa Vasquez), No. 1229 C.D. 2016, holding that it was error for the trial court to order the forfeiture of $301,360.00 and a 2011 Lexus when the Commonwealth failed to establish a nexus […]

Continue Reading

NEWS FLASH: MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CLIENT CAN UNDERSTAND THE COURT PROCEEDINGS OR … YOU WILL BE DEEMED INEFFECTIVE

The PA Superior Court recently decided the case of Commonwealth v. Diaz, No. 1811 EDA 2016 (March 23, 2018), holding that Diaz was entitled to a new trial because his trial counsel failed to insist that he have a translator present during the entire court proceeding so he could understand the proceedings and assist in […]

Continue Reading

TRIAL COURT MUST CONDUCT OBJECTIVE INQUIRY INTO WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF BLOOD TO DETERMINE WHETHER EXIGENCY EXISTED

The Pa. Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Trahey, No. 730 EDA 2017 (March 26, 2018), holding that it was error for the trial court not to conduct an objective inquiry of the totality of the circumstances to determine whether exigent circumstances justified the officers’ warrantless testing of Trahey’s blood during a […]

Continue Reading

DRUG OVERDOSE? IF YOU CALL FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE, YOU MAY BE IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION IN CERTAIN CASES.

The PA Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Sheila Marie Lewis, No. 257 MDA 2017 (March 2, 2018), holding that if a person has a reasonable belief emergency medical care is required due to a drug overdose, they are entitled to immunity from prosecution for certain crimes under PA’s Drug Overdose Response Immunity […]

Continue Reading

Contact our Lancaster PA office today to schedule your consultation

Or, click here to fill in our form to schedule your consultation >>

The materials on this website are for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. You should not rely on any material on this website and should instead seek the advice of competent legal counsel. This information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Receipt of e-mail by McMahon Winters Soto-Ortiz, LLC from you through this website shall not constitute acceptance of an engagement to provide legal services without an executed written agreement or engagement letter. Without an executed written agreement or engagement letter, McMahon Winters Soto-Ortiz, LLC shall not treat as confidential any information provided by e-mail, delivered through this website.

Address:

30 N Lime Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
8:00 am - 5:00pm Mon - Fri

Copyright ©2016 McMahon Winters Soto-Ortiz, LLC

SiteLock