Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 7/31/2002

Commonwealth v. Cunningham

Citations

805 A.2d 566
125 A.L.R. 5th 719
2002 Pa. Super. 249
2002 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2041

How courts have described this case

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

holding that “the record reflects sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Cunningham] participated in the crimes of which he was convicted”
holding 911 calls were admissible under the present sense impression exception
holding 911 calls were admissible under present sense impression exception
affirming admission of 911 calls that occurred as crime was unfolding
for purposes of present sense impression, “[t]he observation must be made at the time of the event or so shortly thereafter that it is unlikely that the declarant had the opportunity to form the purpose of misstating his observation”
Trial Court Opinion, filed September 2, 2020, at 9-10

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lally-Green, Olszewski, Popovich

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

36 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.