Court Opinion

ID: 9692510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:56:05.831785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:34.975214
License: Public Domain

*60NIGRO, Justice,
concurring.
I join Justice Cappy’s majority opinion for very much the same reasons that I joined Madame Justice Newman’s majority opinion in Commonwealth v. Hawk, 551 Pa. 71, 709 A.2d 373 (1998).1 Like the expert testimony proffered by the defendant in Hawk, which concerned a negative rape kit test result, the expert testimony proffered by the prosecution in the instant case, which concerned the results of physical examinations of the victims, is both relevant under the standard set forth in Commonwealth v. Spiewak, 533 Pa. 1, 617 A.2d 696 (1992)2, and more probative than prejudicial. Thus, the majority correctly concludes that the Superior Court did not err in finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the expert testimony was admissible.

. I filed a concurring opinion in Hawk solely to address concerns raised by the dissent regarding the relevancy of the expert testimony at issue in the appeal.

. Under Spiewak, "[e]vidence is relevant if it tends to logically establish a material fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable, or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding the existence of a material fact." Spiewak, 533 Pa. at 8, 617 A.2d at 699.