Commonwealth v. DiPanfilo

How courts have described this case

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

• holding lay witnesses may testify as to their opinion that individual was under influence of cocaine and opiates because their intoxicating effects are widely and commonly understood
• explaining that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Subsection 3802(d)(2
• finding evidence sufficient to establish defendant was incapable of safe driving where an officer’s experience, training and observations established he was under the influence
• stating, “Finally, and most importantly, we cannot ignore the fact that [the defendant] refused a blood test”
• noting subsections (d)(2) and (d)(3) of Section 3802 “contain no language requiring that impairment be established through blood tests”
• noting subsections (d)(2) and (d)(3) of Section 3802 “contain no language requiring that impairment be established through blood tests”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).