2026 has been an incredible year for criminal lawyers in terms of new cases and important evidentiary rules developments. These important cases are summarized below.

Commonwealth v. Lee (March 26, 2026)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Pennsylvania's mandatory life-without-parole (LWOP) sentence for all second-degree (felony) murder convictions violates Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (the "cruel punishments" clause). "Felony murder" is typically any homicide that occurred during the course of a felony, even if the defendant charged did not intend to cause a killing.

The Court found that the mandatory scheme of LWOP for felony murder is unconstitutionally cruel because it imposes the harshest non-capital sentence without any individualized assessment of the defendant's actual culpability or role in the killing. For example, a get away driver could get charged with felony murder and if convicted be sentenced to LWOP. The felony-murder rule itself remains valid, as does discretionary LWOP after individualized consideration.

Punxsutawney Hunting Club, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Game Commission (July 21, 2026)

The end of the "open fields" doctrine regarding 4th Amendment Seizures in Pennsylvania. In a unanimous decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater privacy protection than the Fourth Amendment for "open fields" on private land where the owner has taken sufficient steps to exclude the public.

Government officials (including game wardens) now must generally obtain a warrant based on probable cause or satisfy a recognized exception before entering private land. This is a landmark search-and-seizure decision with broad implications for criminal investigations involving private land.

Commonwealth v. Walker (January 28, 2026)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court abrogated the longstanding "logical connection" test for the common-plan/scheme/design exception to the ban on propensity evidence, finding it too permissive. The Walker Court determined that consolidation of separate sexual-assault cases requires a stricter showing that the evidence of each would truly be admissible in a separate trial.

Additionally, the Walker Court held that certain rape-kit/forensic reports are testimonial and their admission without the author violates the Confrontation Clause.

Commonwealth v. Belgrave (March 26, 2026)

The Belgrave Court determined that it is prosecutorial misconduct—and reversible error—for the Commonwealth to call a witness to the stand when it knows in advance that the witness will refuse to answer substantive questions. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected distinctions based on formal invocation versus simple silence/refusal, emphasizing the improper inferences the jury may draw.

Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick (January 21, 2026)

All expert opinion testimony—including opinions on manner of death—must be stated to a reasonable degree of professional certainty to be admissible under Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. A "more likely than not" or mere-probability standard is insufficient.

Commonwealth v. Peters (May 4, 2026)

"Malice is malice." In a DUI case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a higher standard of "malice" that the Commonwealth previously had to prove in relation to DUI cases. The Peters Court determined that there is a single standard for malice regardless of what crime is involved.

Commonwealth v. Steadly (July 21, 2026)

To prove the crime of resisting arrest, the Commonwealth must show that the arrest was actually lawful as an element of the crime. Proof of existence of a warrant alone is insufficient; the Commonwealth must present evidence of the warrant's validity.

Commonwealth v. Hitchner (July 21, 2026)

The Court changed how probation periods and calculations for absconders affect violations. A bench warrant does not toll or extend the probationary term. Probation cannot be revoked for conduct occurring only after the fixed expiration.

Commonwealth v. Shivers (July 21, 2026)

Vague references to "broader state protections" without a developed analysis in an omnibus motion/hearing are insufficient to preserve a departure claim on appeal. Under Commonwealth v. Bishop, such claims require assertion of the state constitutional principle plus analysis/reasons for interpreting it more expansively than Federal Law.

Commonwealth v. Duckett (Pa. Super. July 15, 2026)

A suppression motion filed over a year after formal arraignment was deemed untimely and waived. This is a strong reminder of the 30-day Rule 579 deadline for omnibus motions. Late filing risks waiver unless counsel proactively seeks extension for good cause.