Commonwealth v. Patton

Because I do not agree with the majority’s view that the deciding issue in this case is whether Officer William Hind-man’s testimony was competent to establish that a urine test was necessary in order to detect the presence of a controlled substance, I write separately to concur in the result to reverse the judgment of the trial court.

First, Officer Hindman’s competency is not an issue before us on appeal. It was not listed as an issue under the Statement of Questions Involved in Patton’s brief, which Pa. R.A.P. 2116(a) requires and which is “in the highest degree mandatory,” and he never…