Filter This View

  • Commonwealth v. Woeber

    Publication Date: 2017-11-28
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals | Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1752

    Trial court erred in excluding testimony of sexual assault victims exculpatory and contradictory statements under the Rape Shield Law. Judgment of sentence vacated, case remanded.

  • Commonwealth v. Hart

    Publication Date: 2017-11-28
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1114

    The trial court erred in denying defendants petition to withdraw his nolo contendere plea to invasion of privacy where defendant was not informed that he would be subject to the registration requirements of the Sexual Offender Registration Notification Act, now considered a punishment, and thus the plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The court reversed an order denying defendants petition to withdraw his plea.

  • In the Interest of H.K.

    Publication Date: 2017-10-31
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1611

    Trial court erred in granting parents request for de novo hearing in dependency petition after orphans court had accepted masters report, when parent failed to object to hearing before master and had not shown cause for rehearing, and thus had no right to rehearing before trial judge. Order of the trial court reversed.

  • Commonwealth v. Moyer

    Publication Date: 2017-10-24
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1591

    Defendant was not entitled to retroactive application of the holding in Birchfield v. North Dakota, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held that the criminalization of a suspects refusal to consent to a blood test violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, since she failed to challenge the warrantless blood draw at any stage of the litigation prior to a nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion. The appellate court affirmed defendants judgment of sentence.