Com. v. Drawbaugh

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an officer offered expert testimony when he used skidmarks at the scene to reconstruct an accident and deduce a vehicle’s speed, position, and direction
• holding that police officer must be qualified as an expert before being allowed to testify about accident reconstruction and inferences he drew therefrom
• holding that police officer must be qualified as an expert before being allowed to testify about accident reconstruction and inferences he drew therefrom
• holding that where an instruction was not given due to counsel's apparent inadvertence, the court would review the claim of error on appeal
• holding, where defense counsel had tendered one instruction but not another, “a nontactical instructional omission generally should be reviewed for plain error”
• holding defendant was not entitled to intervening cause instruction because claimed intervening cause did not occur between the unlawful act and the ultimate harm

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).