Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. AMY N. KOCH, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2012-05-15
Citations: 615 Pa. 612
Docket Number: No. 947 MAL 2011
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. AMY N. KOCH, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 615
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
44 A.3d 1147
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. AMY N. KOCH, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 15, 2012.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 15th day of May 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner are:
(1) Did a panel of the Superior Court err in reversing the trial court's determination that drug-related text messages were not offered for their truth and thus admissible where it's [sic] ruling conflicts with a prior ruling of a panel of the Superior Court and creates uncertainty in the law?
(2) Did a panel of the Superior Court err in reversing the trial court's determination that drug-related text messages were properly authenticated where it misapprehended the plain language of Pa.R.E. 901 and rendered an opinion inconsistent with a prior opinion of a panel of the Superior Court, again creating uncertainty in the law?