Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 7/8/2010

Commonwealth v. Moser

Citations

999 A.2d 602
2010 Pa. Super. 123
2010 WL 8585281
2010 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1479

How courts have described this case

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

stating that “a nolo contendere plea has the same effect as a guilty plea for purposes of sentencing and is considered a conviction[.]”
explaining that this Court applies an evidentiary abuse of discretion standard of review when ruling on a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion in limine
stating that this Court may affirm a decision of the trial court if there is any basis on the record to support the trial court’s ruling, even if we rely on a different basis
stating that if a trial court ruling excludes Commonwealth evidence and the Commonwealth has certified that the effect of the ruling is to substantially handicap its case, the appeal is properly before the Court
finding Commonwealth could appeal the trial court’s denial of its motion in limine which resulted in the exclusion of prosecution evidence and had the effect of substantially handicapping the prosecution
finding Commonwealth could appeal the trial court’s denial of its motion in limine which resulted in the exclusion of prosecution evidence and had the effect of substantially handicapping the prosecution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bowes, Cleland, McEwen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.