Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 5/7/2013

Commonwealth v. Huggins

Citations

68 A.3d 962
2013 Pa. Super. 107
2013 WL 1883252
2013 Pa. Super. LEXIS 718

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that lay opinion testimony is permissible where it is based on the - 12 - J-S09019-26 witness’ perceptions
“[T]his Court is not bound by decisions of federal courts inferior to the United States Supreme Court, even though we may look to them for guidance.”
drug enforcement agent permitted to testify as both an expert, for limited purpose of decoding drug jargon, and a layperson, regarding his personal perceptions during the investigation and opinion that defendant was one of the parties to the intercepted telephone calls
“the rules do not preclude a single witness from testifying, or offering opinions, in the capacity as both a lay and an expert witness on matters that may embrace the ultimate issues to be decided by the fact-finder.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Fitzgerald, Olson, Ott

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

25 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.