forensic analysis in Pennsylvania

2025Further, “[t]he Commonwealth [is] not required to present any forensic evidence or ‘physical proof’ of penetration.” Gilliam, 249 A.3d at 269 (citing Commonwealth v. Gibson, 951 A.2d 1110, 1140 (Pa. 2008) (stating there is no constitutional requirement for the police to conduct a forensic analysis of evidence)).

2021See Commonwealth v. Gibson, 951 A.2d 1110, 1140 (2008) (there is no constitutional requirement for the police to conduct a forensic analysis of evidence).

2026Several years later, the United States Supreme Court, in Melendez-Diaz, supra, considered whether “certificates reporting the forensic analysis of the composition and quantity of substances seized from the defendant,” such as cocaine, were “testimonial” and, thus, subject to Confrontation Clause constraints.

2024It stated: In Melendez–Diaz [v. Massachusetts], the Court considered a Massachusetts trial court's admission into evidence at a criminal trial for drug trafficking of certificates reporting the forensic analysis of the composition and quantity of substances seized from the defendant. 557 U.S. 305 (2009).

2025This Court has clarified that the definition of “sexual intercourse” encompasses vaginal sex (penetration, however slight, of a vagina with a penis), oral sex ____________________________________________ an attempt to commit an offense, and the completed offense; the former merges into the latter.”); Commonwealth v. Nelson, 305 A.2d 369, 370 (Pa. 1973) (“If one crime necessarily involves another the two offenses merge.”). -8- J-A02028-25 (penetration, however slight, of a mouth with a penis or penetration, however slight, of a vagina with a mouth/tongue), or anal sex (penetration, however slig

2006See generally Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 206 , 119 S.Ct. 1915, 1921 , 144 L.Ed.2d 184 (1999) (commenting upon the federal, categorical approach with regard to collateral orders). [1] I agree with the Majority that the disclosure order was appealable by the Attorney General as of right, but I specifically note my disagreement with the Majority's characterization of Commonwealth v. Cosnek, 575 Pa. 411 , 836 A.2d 871 (2003) and, in particular, any overt or implied suggestion that Cosnek should inform the general approach to questions of appealability under Pa.R.A.P. 311.

2006See generally Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 206 , 119 S.Ct. 1915, 1921 , 144 L.Ed.2d 184 (1999) (commenting upon the federal, categorical approach with regard to collateral orders). [1] I agree with the Majority that the disclosure order was appealable by the Attorney General as of right, but I specifically note my disagreement with the Majority's characterization of Commonwealth v. Cosnek, 575 Pa. 411 , 836 A.2d 871 (2003) and, in particular, any overt or implied suggestion that Cosnek should inform the general approach to questions of appealability under Pa.R.A.P. 311.

2006See generally Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 206 , 119 S.Ct. 1915, 1921 , 144 L.Ed.2d 184 (1999) (commenting upon the federal, categorical approach with regard to collateral orders). [1] I agree with the Majority that the disclosure order was appealable by the Attorney General as of right, but I specifically note my disagreement with the Majority's characterization of Commonwealth v. Cosnek, 575 Pa. 411 , 836 A.2d 871 (2003) and, in particular, any overt or implied suggestion that Cosnek should inform the general approach to questions of appealability under Pa.R.A.P. 311.

2006See generally Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 206 , 119 S.Ct. 1915, 1921 , 144 L.Ed.2d 184 (1999) (commenting upon the federal, categorical approach with regard to collateral orders). [1] I agree with the Majority that the disclosure order was appealable by the Attorney General as of right, but I specifically note my disagreement with the Majority's characterization of Commonwealth v. Cosnek, 575 Pa. 411 , 836 A.2d 871 (2003) and, in particular, any overt or implied suggestion that Cosnek should inform the general approach to questions of appealability under Pa.R.A.P. 311.