Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Watson

Citations

  • 945 A.2d 174
  • 2008 Pa. Super. 17
  • 2008 Pa. Super. LEXIS 75
  • 2008 WL 324658

How courts have described this case

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

  • ruling that \[a]n expert's testimony is admissible when it is based on facts of record and will not cause confusion or prejudice\
  • holding claim there is no statutory authority to impose enhancement under 35 P.S. § 780- 115 presents challenge to legality of sentence
  • holding harmless error exists where “the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence.”
  • holding claim there is no statutory authority to impose enhancement under 35 P.S. § 780- 115 presents challenge to legality of sentence
  • stating: “If no statutory authorization exists for a particular sentence, that sentence is illegal and subject to correction. An illegal sentence must be vacated”
  • “If no statutory authorization exists for a particular sentence, that sentence is illegal and subject to correction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Klein, Gantman, Kelly

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

13 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.