Commonwealth v. Loughran

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reviewed the Commonwealth’s appeal from an order denying a motion in limine seeking to exclude defense expert testimony concerning a domestic-violence victim’s medical records, alleged Oppositional Defiant Disorder diagnosis, and medical evidence of strangulation and assault. The court held that the order was appealable as a collateral order to the extent it permitted public disclosure of the victim’s mental-health diagnosis, but lacked jurisdiction over the remaining challenge to the admission of defense evidence under Pa.R.A.P. 311(d). It concluded that the expert’s opinion regarding the diagnosis was inadequately founded and insufficiently certain, and that testimony linking the diagnosis to character traits constituted inadmissible character evidence.

Holdings

1. An order denying the Commonwealth's motion to exclude defense evidence is not appealable as of right under Rule 311(d) merely because the Commonwealth certifies that the order will terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution, particularly where the order does not have a tangible or practical effect on the Commonwealth's ability to prosecute and its effect depends on evidence not yet presented at trial.
2. The portion of the pretrial order permitting public disclosure at trial of the victim's oppositional defiant disorder diagnosis was immediately appealable as a collateral order because it implicated the victim's constitutional right to informational privacy.
3. The proposed expert testimony concerning the victim's oppositional defiant disorder diagnosis was inadmissible because the expert's report expressed the opinion only as a possibility and therefore did not satisfy the requirement that expert testimony be stated with the requisite degree of medical certainty.
4. The proposed testimony linking the victim's alleged oppositional defiant disorder to angry, irritable, argumentative, defiant, or vindictive traits was inadmissible character evidence because opinion testimony may not be used to establish a character trait.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commonwealth had an appeal as of right under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 311(d) from an order denying its motion to exclude defense expert testimony.
2. Whether the portion of the order permitting public disclosure at trial of the victim's prior oppositional defiant disorder diagnosis was appealable as a collateral order.
3. Whether the proposed expert testimony concerning the victim's oppositional defiant disorder diagnosis and related traits was incompetent because it lacked the requisite degree of medical certainty and constituted inadmissible character evidence.

Disposition

other