Court Filings
3 filings indexedRecent court opinions cross-linked with public notices by case number, summarized and classified by AI.
Grego, M. v. Gonzalez, M.
The Superior Court affirmed most of the Berks County custody decision awarding Mother sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the parties’ five-year-old daughter, and awarding Father professionally supervised physical visitation. The court found credible evidence of Father’s history of violence, a validated child-protective-services report, criminal convictions, and allegations of drug-dealing that supported a present risk finding under the custody statute and justified safety restrictions. However, the court reversed a supplemental order (a gag order) that broadly prohibited public discussion about the case because the trial court did not make specific factual findings that Father’s posts had harmed or would imminently harm the child, so the speech restriction failed constitutional scrutiny.
FamilyAffirmed in Part, Reversed in PartSuperior Court of Pennsylvania1101 MDA 2025Com. v. Rivera, J.
The Superior Court reviewed a trial court’s pretrial evidence rulings in the Commonwealth’s vehicular homicide prosecution of Joshua A. Rivera. The panel affirmed some exclusions and reversed others: it upheld exclusion of body-camera audio and a Facebook video, but reversed the exclusion of non-numeric lay descriptions of driving by certain eyewitnesses and reversal of the exclusion of drug-related items found in Rivera’s impounded vehicle. The court reasoned that in a criminal case where the prosecution must prove state of mind, lay witnesses may give contextual, non-numeric testimony about driving, and items found pursuant to a lawful warrant were relevant and not rendered inadmissible by the time gap while the car was impounded.
Criminal AppealAffirmed in Part, Reversed in PartSuperior Court of Pennsylvania547 WDA 2025Com. v. Mancuso, D.
Three brothers were tried jointly and convicted of sexual offenses against a single complainant from events when she was a minor. The Superior Court reversed Damien’s sentence because the Commonwealth failed to specify the date of his alleged offense with sufficient particularity. The Court reversed Rian’s sentence and ordered a new trial because consolidation of his trial with Damien’s was an abuse of discretion and prosecutorial closing remarks improperly invited guilt by association. The Court affirmed Sean’s convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing because his convictions for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and indecent assault must merge for sentencing.
Criminal AppealAffirmed in Part, Reversed in PartSuperior Court of Pennsylvania247 MDA 2024