From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Lara

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Feb 19, 2014
97 A.3d 806 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014)

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. State

Opinion

NO. 517 MDA 2013

2014-02-19

Com. v. Lara, H.


Appeal From: CP–49–CR–0000513–2010 (Northumberland)

Disposition: Affirmed.


-------- Notes:


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Lara

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Feb 19, 2014
97 A.3d 806 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014)

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. State
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Lara

Case Details

Full title:Com. v. Lara, H.

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Date published: Feb 19, 2014

Citations

97 A.3d 806 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014)

Citing Cases

Potts v. State

Of those jurisdictions that have, it has been consistently held that single point calibration is a sufficient…