Commonwealth v. Arrington

Summary

The court held that the Commonwealth could not pursue an interlocutory appeal under rule 15 from the denial of a motion in limine excluding frequent location history data because the ruling did not effectively terminate the prosecution. It also held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that the Commonwealth failed to establish the reliability of the proposed expert testimony under the Daubert-Lanigan standard. The case was remanded for entry of judgment affirming the trial judge's order and for further proceedings.