Commonwealth v. Minerd
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CAPPY, Justice.
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Commonwealth may, as part of its case-in-chief in a sexual assault prosecution, offer the testimony of an expert that the absence of physical trauma is nevertheless consistent with the alleged sexual abuse. For the reasons stated herein, we hold that such testimony is' admissible in the Commonwealth’s casein-chief and accordingly, we affirm.
The following facts were developed at trial. The two victims were V.M., who was born in 1977, and her sister J.M., who was born in 1978. Their mother became romantically involved…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Commonwealth v. O'SEAROSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Commonwealth v. TilghmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- Commonwealth v. BaezSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Morrison v. Com., Dept. of Pub. WelfareSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Commonwealth v. CountermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LopezSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Commonwealth v. DillonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Commonwealth v. GalvinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Commonwealth v. KeatonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Commonwealth v. ManivannanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.