Com. v. Hernandez

15 Citing cases

  1. Com. v. Johnson

    456 Pa. Super. 251 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997)   Cited 8 times

    Commonwealth v. O'Searo, 466 Pa. 224, 229, 352 A.2d 30, 32 (1976). Conversely, expert testimony is not permitted on matters of common knowledge. Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 420 Pa. Super. 1, 13, 615 A.2d 1337, 1343 (1992). Expert testimony may not be used to bolster the credibility of witnesses because witness credibility is solely within the province of the jury.

  2. Grego v. Kerestes

    CIVIL NO. 1:CV-13-2675 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 15, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Second, S.Z.'s statements were admissible under Rule 803(4) unless they were testimonial in nature, citing Commonwealth v. Allhouse, 604 Pa. 61, 985 A.2d 847 (2009), but her statements were not testimonial; they were instead given for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment. (Id., ECF p. 8). Third, Dr. Taroli's testimony was not given to sustain S.Z.'s credibility but to show how a doctor conducts a medical examination, citing Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 420 Pa. Super. Ct. 1, 615 A.2d 1337 (1992). (Id.).

  3. Commonwealth v. Maconeghy

    171 A.3d 707 (Pa. 2017)   Cited 43 times
    Holding that "expert testimony opining that a child has been sexually abused—which is predicated on witness accounts and not physical findings—is inadmissible"

    Further, the panel noted the Superior Court's own previous admonition that "the admissibility of expert testimony in child abuse cases must be evaluated cautiously in order to prevent encroachment upon the jury's function by the unfair enhancement of a child victim's credibility." Maconeghy, 2191 MDA 2014, slip op. at 7, 2015 WL 7078462, at *3 (quoting Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 420 Pa.Super. 1, 8, 615 A.2d 1337, 1340 (1992) ). The panel also discussed the legislative enactment pertaining to expert testimony in various criminal proceedings involving sexual offenses, which now authorizes certain professionals to testify as to "specific types of victim responses and behaviors."

  4. Commonwealth v. Huertas

    No. J-S48013-19 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 24, 2020)

    . That testimony was necessar[ily] prejudicial to the appellant due to the fact that the prosecution relied primarily upon the perceived veracity of the victim to establish its case."); see also Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 615 A.2d 1337, 1340 (Pa.Super. 1992) ("We are mindful that the admissibility of expert testimony in child abuse cases must be evaluated cautiously in order to prevent encroachment upon the jury's function by the unfair enhancement of a child victim's credibility."). Appellant's claim for relief will have to find purchase solely within the confines of § 5920 and the case law interpreting it that existed at the time of his trial.

  5. Beatty v. Kauffman

    1:19-cv-184 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2021)

    In arguing to the contrary, [Beatty] refers to statements that must be considered in the context in which they were given; either to establish the witness's role in disclosure and/or investigation, the victim's competency, or to permit diagnosis. See e.g., Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 615 A.2d 1337, 1341 (concluding that the trial court's instructions correctly informed the jury that the witness, in performing her job, made certain evaluations and reached conclusions distinct from the jury's function as fact-finder). Commonwealth v. Loner, 609 A.2d 1376, 1377 (explaining that the Commonwealth may present evidence of child victim's prior consistent statement to corroborate the victim's testimony).

  6. Commonwealth v. Walters

    323 A.3d 151 (Pa. 2024)

    He submits that this Court has consistently prohibited such testimony on the basis that it "encroaches upon the province of the jury and improperly and unfairly enhances the credibility of the witness." Appellant’s Brief at 53 (citing Commonwealth v. Seese, 512 Pa. 439, 517 A.2d 920 (1986); Commonwealth v. Balodis, 560 Pa. 567, 747 A.2d 341 (2000); and Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 420 Pa.Super. 1, 615 A.2d 1337 (1992)). With respect to the Superior Court’s determination that, because Dr. Ross admitted he found no objective evidence to substantiate Bell’s claim that Lorenzen was strangled, his testimony did not impermissibly bolster Bell’s credibility, Appellant suggests that the court overlooked the fact that Dr. Ross admitted that he relied on Bell’s statements for his opinion that Lorenzen was, in fact, strangled.

  7. State v. Huston

    825 N.W.2d 531 (Iowa 2013)   Cited 69 times
    Finding no probative value of a founded abuse report in a criminal action

    The district court gave no curative or limiting instruction to the jury regarding the DHS determination. Other courts have allowed testimony as to administrative findings with a curative or limiting instruction. See, e.g., United States v. W.R. Grace, 455 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1207 (D.Mont.2006)(allowing evidence of EPA environmental risk assessment because the jury is capable of “[d]ifferentiating between the different standards” with the help of a limiting jury instruction); Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 420 Pa.Super. 1, 615 A.2d 1337, 1341 (1992)(affirming conviction for sexual abuse of minor when trial court gave cautionary instruction “that only the jury was the factfinder ... and [that] it ‘must not and may not accept any standard adopted by DHS' ”). We do not believe it would have been proper in this case to allow testimony that the child abuse report was determined to be founded even with a limiting instruction.

  8. Com. v. Minerd

    562 Pa. 46 (Pa. 2000)   Cited 67 times
    Concluding trial court did not err in allowing expert to testify regarding her inconclusive examination results of her physical examination of the child victims

    Id. at 275 (citations omitted). The court analogized to Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 615 A.2d 1337 (Pa.Super. 1992), in which the Superior Court found that a pediatrician could testify "that the physical facts observed and reported by the treating physician were consistent with the allegation of anal sodomy." Id. at 1343.

  9. Commonwealth v. Foulkes

    468 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 27, 2024)

    "[A] medical expert may base his opinion upon facts which are in the record and reports of others which are not in medicine but customarily relied upon in practicing medicine, including the observations of lay persons." Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 615 A.2d 1337, 1343 (Pa.Super. 1992) (citation omitted). The jury in this matter, as fact-finder, was entitled to believe all, part, or none of Dr. Raj's expert medical testimony.

  10. Commonwealth v. Tiburcio

    1379 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jul. 28, 2023)

    However, this instruction has limited use. In Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 615 A.2d 1337 (Pa. Super. 1992), the Superior Court rejected the application of the low-grade jury instruction stating: A fair characterization of the low grade witness instruction would be that it was designed specifically for dealing with the competency of lay witnesses and psychiatrists testifying on questions of sanity.