Appellant appealed the trial court's judgment of sentence on his conviction for driving under the influence-controlled substance and related crimes. The court affirmed, holding that expert testimony was not necessary to support appellant's conviction for DUI-controlled substance where a testifying trooper opined that appellant was under the influence based upon his observations, the outcome of field sobriety testing, and the officer's training and experience.

C.E.'s skull was fractured when he was seven weeks old. Each parent blamed the other.

The parties were embroiled in a legal battle over their two young children, who were wrongfully retained by defendant in El Paso, Texas, after a visit from their habitual residence in Juarez, Mexico.

Court Applied Improper Standard When Considering Evidence on Pretext, Causation

Court Remands Challenge of Denial of Application for Disability Insurance Benefits