Commonwealth v. Griffith

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 14, 2010

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2010-09-14

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 2011

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Whether expert testimony is required to prove that the amount of a controlled substance found in a defendant’s blood or urine caused the driving impairment under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)[ (2) ].”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Commonwealth v. Griffith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2010-09-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2AND NOW, this 14th day of September, 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is

Whether expert testimony is required to prove that the amount of a controlled substance found in a defendant’s blood or urine caused the driving impairment charged under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d).