Summary
holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion where it admitted blood evidence because the sample was tested in conformance with the procedures required by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, even though there were no separation matrix tests conducted at the time this batch of samples were tested, and this outweighed the testimony and opinion of an expert stating single point calibration was a deficient test
Summary of this case from Potts v. StateOpinion
NO. 517 MDA 2013
2014-02-19
Com. v. Lara, H.
Appeal From: CP–49–CR–0000513–2010 (Northumberland)
Disposition: Affirmed.