|
|
|
Archives of PA Criminal Cases (2002) |
|
|
Index of 2002 Archives
|
|
|
|
Case Summaries
|
December, 2002
COMMONWEALTH v JON ANTHONY SPETZER (J-69-2000)
Supreme Court 250 MD appeal docket 1999 decided December 31, 2002
This case gives a good review of spousal communications privilege
set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5914 in the context of sexual abuse of a
child.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH V JOSEPH SCOLIERE (J-130-2002)
Supreme Court No. 25 WAP 2002, decided December 31, 2002
In order to convict a defendant under 18 Section 6310.1(a)
selling or furnishing alcohol to minors the Commonwealth must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant know that the person served was less
than 21 years of age.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v DERRICK HARVEY (J-46-2002)
Supreme Court No. 267 Capital Appeal Docket decided December 20, 2002
When the Commonwealth elects to use 42 Pa.C.S. Section 9711(d)(14) as
an aggravating factor to support the death penalty they must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt not only that not only was the defendant involved in the
sale of drugs at the time of the killing but also that the killing was to
promote the defendant's activities in selling, manufacturing, distributing
or delivering controlled substance.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JOHN WAYNE ROBINS (J-67-2002)
Supreme Court No. 48 WAP 2000 decided December 18, 2002
This case gives a good review of when the court should admit a
non-custodial, extrajudicial statements of a non testifying co- defendant.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JOSE A. SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ (J-S80022-02 2003 PA SUPER 1)
Superior Court 500 MDA 2002 decided January 3, 2003
The defendant in this case was found guilty of delivery and
possession of intent to deliver heroin and conspiracy. As a recidivist he
was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of three years, he was also
subject to a two year mandatory minimum of two years for the transaction
taking place in a drug free school zone. He was sentenced to concurrent
terms of 3 to 6 years for delivery, 1 to 2 years for possession with intent
to deliver and 1 to 2 years for conspiracy. The court declined to sentence
him for the additional two years mandatory minimum for selling drugs in the
school zone based on its reading of the statute that as long as the sentence
was longer then 2 years the court has complied with a the statute. The
Superior Court agreed with the Trial Court that the mandatory minimum
sentence under the drug free school statute is not required to be imposed in
addition to the other applicable mandatory sentencing procedures.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JUSTIN SIMMER (J.A32003/02 2002 PA SUPER 413)
Superior Court 655 WDA 2002 decided December 23, 2002
A defendant's voluntary entry into a ARD program with respect to a
charge of DUI, constitutes a waiver of the defendant's right to later assert
section 110 as a bar to prosecution of the DUI offense, upon the defendant's
removal from the ARD program.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v BENJAMIN R. REPPERT (J E03001/02 2002 PA SUPER 383)
Superior Court 572 WDA 2002, decided December 10, 2002
This case gives a good review of constitutes "reasonable suspicion" on the part of
a police officer observes prior to a routine traffic stop.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v CHAMROEUN BY (J.A15018/02 2002 PA SUPER 376)
Superior Court 383 MDA 2001, decided December 2, 2002
This case gives a good review of when a police officer request to search the car after
initial traffic stop has concluded.
Click here to read more on the case.
November, 2002
NOTE: Title 234 - Rules of Criminal Procedure
This new rule is in effect January 1, 2003. The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee
has prepared a Final Report explaining the new Rule of Criminal Procedure 117. The
new rule prohibits the imposition of court fees against a defendant when a criminal
proceeding is conducted using a two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication.. (If
you want to see a copy of this new rule, there is one in the office of Susan Magee).
COMMONWEALTH v DELBERT L. ALEXANDER (J.S74020/02 2002 PA SUPER 369)
Superior Court 564,565 WDA 2002, decided November 25, 2002
The defendant was arrested on July 14th 2000 for Driving Under the Influence and Driving
Under Suspension DUI related for an incident that had occurred on June 23, 2000, on
September 15, 2000 another criminal complaint for Driving Under the Influence and Driving
Under Suspension DUI related for an incident that had occurred on May 20, 2000. On February
9, 2001 he pled guilty to both charges. The first DUI was graded as a M2 the second was graded
as a M1 because it was his third DUI. The defendant appealed with the position that because he
pled guilty to both charges on the same day neither conviction could be used towards establishing
a third conviction under 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 3731(e)(1). The Court concluded that a court
sentencing under 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 3731(e)(1) only has to count the number of Driving Under the
Influence convictions there are and it makes no difference if you pled guilty to them on the same
day or not.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JAMES REVERE, (J.S18033/02 2002 PA SUPER 366)
Superior Court 898EDA 2001, decided November 20, 2002
The defendant and two men were seen, what the officer believed, to be
involved in a drug transaction, as the officers approached one of the men
took off running down the street. One of officers chased after him, the
other officers began investigating the defendant and his companion.
During this investigation the officers heard screams and shouts coming
from the area where the other officer ran. The officers then placed the
defendant and his companion in the back of the police car and drove to
where the screams came from. Upon arriving at the scene and finding
everything ok- the officers proceeded with their investigatory stop of the
defendant. At this time they found a gun and ammunition, he was
subsequently charged with carrying a firearm without a license. The
defendant moved to have the gun suppressed because when he was placed
inside the police car it was functionally equivalent to an arrest and at
that time the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. The defendant
relied on the case of Commonwealth v Lovette, 450 A.2d 975 (Pa. 1982) and
urged the court to adopt the per se rule regarding placing suspects in
police cars. This Court in interpreting Lovette, and admitting that it is
just dictum in Lovette concludes that transporting a suspect in a police
car could be justified by exigent circumstances and this deprivation of a
person's liberty would not amount to the functional equivalent of an
arrest.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v SHAWN LOCKRIDGE (J-84-2002)
Supreme Court 157 MAP 2002, decided November 20, 2002
The defendant was issued a summary citation by the Deputy
Sheriff for driving with a suspended license in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.
Section 1543 (b) based on information he received from a witness. The
defendant appealed the decision based on the Supreme Court's decision in
Commonwealth v Leet. This Court distinguished its decision in Lett from
the facts of this case and held that Pa.R. Crim.Section 410 authorizes a
deputy sheriff to file a citation for a Vehicle Code summary violation
based on information received from a witness.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JOHN WALLACE (JS61035-02 2002 PA SUPER 367)
Superior Court 639 EDA 2002, decided November 21, 2002
The defendant is the father of eight children, the police were
called to the house for a domestic disturbance, when they went into the
house they found the conditions to be deplorable. The house was filled
with garbage, and was infested with mice and fleas. Spoiled and rotten
food was everywhere. The mother and the defendant were arrested and
charged with eight counts of endangering the welfare of children. The
testimony at trial revealed that the mother had worked three jobs and did
her best to keep the house clean, while the father did not work and would
spend his days either sleeping or working at his computer. The testimony
also revealed that the children were never physically abused or
psychologically abused. The mother was found not guilty because she did
the best she could, given her circumstances. The father (defendant) was
found guilty. Although the Court recognizes that most of the cases
involving this charge children have either suffered physical or sexual
abuse, they based their decision on the Pennsylvania's Supreme Court case
of Commonwealth v Mack, in which the Court dictates that statutes such as
this are to be given meaning by reference to the common sense of the
community, and the broad protective purposes for which they are enacted.
In this case even though the children were not harmed the conditions in
which they were placed could have harmed them. ( Judge Cavanaugh given a
strong dissent which is worth reading)
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JACOB SHULL (J.A2206/02 2002 PA SUPER 348)
Superior Court 1754MDA 2001, decided November 8, 2002
This case gives a good review of Section 110 of the Crimes Code.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JAMES THOMAS RIELY (J-S32013-02 2002 PA SUPER 358)
Superior Court 1250 WDA 2001, decided November 14, 2002
The defendant was charged with burglary, theft by unlawful
taking and conspiracy. The jury found him not guilty of the underlying
charges, but found him guilty of conspiracy. The jury's verdict was for a
general conspiracy charge. The Trial Court construed the jury's general
conspiracy verdict as a conspiracy to commit the more serious charge of
conspiracy to commit burglary rather then the lesser charge of conspiracy
to commit theft by unlawful taking and sentenced him accordingly. The
Superior Court reversed and remanded the case for resentencing. The
Superior Court held that in the absence of clear evidence of the jury's
intent to the contrary, a general conspiracy verdict must be resolved in
the favor of the defendant, and may be construed only as a conviction of
conspiracy to commit the least serious underlying offense for which the
jury could properly have found the defendant to have conspired to commit.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JENNIE COLLINS (JS70027/02 2002 PA SUPER 344)
Superior Court 1029 EDA 2002, decided November 4, 2002
This three- member panel of the Superior Court has ruled that
the legislature has intended that the Driving Under the Influence is a
strict offense. There for the affirmative defense of involuntary
intoxication is not available for this charge.
Click here to read more on the case.
October, 2002
COMMONWEALTH v CLEMENTE GIUSTO, (J.S17008/02 2002 PA SUPER 319)
Superior Court 753 MDA 2001, decided October 17, 2002
The defendant was charged with stalking under 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2709(b), the
allegations that supported this charge was one count of stalking in Pa and various
incidents for the past six years that occurred in other states. The Commonwealth
wanted to use the previous stalking that had occurred in other states to support
"course of conduct" as required under Pa.C.S.A. Section 2709(e.1). The Superior
Court resolved the issue by determining that Section 2709(e.1) is an evidentiary
question and must be resolved by the Trial Court according to the rules of the
admission of evidence, and nothing in the statute precludes the Commonwealth from
using incidents of stalking from another state.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v RANDY TODD HAAG APPEAL OF : NAOMI HAAG, AS NEXT OF FRIEND
(J-54-2001)
Supreme Court 308 Capital Appeal Docket. Decided October 24, 2002
The defendant was tried and convicted of first -degree murder and was
sentenced to death. The defendant's attorney filed a PCRA petition on his
behalf seeking to have his mother appointment to status of "next friend".
After a hearing it was determined that the defendant was incompetent and
his mother was granted this status. As next of friend his mother filed a
petition to stay the PCRA until the defendant became competent. The issue
of whether individual possess some level of competency in order to pursue
a collateral challenge of his conviction and death sentence is a matter of
first impression for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. This Court decided
that when a defendant is represented by a next friend and counsel, a
defendant's incompetence is not a bar to effective collateral review in a
death penalty case.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v MICHAEL OVERBY (J-144-2000)
Supreme Court 244 Capital Appeal Docket, Decided October 24, 2002
This case gives a good review of Burton and when a redaction is
not sufficient.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v PAUL ROBINSON (J.A18039/02 2002 PA SUPER 322)
Superior Court 1396 EDA 2001, Decided October 18, 2002
This case gives a good review of the elements needed to charge
for Aggravated Assault.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH V GIDEON ASAMOAH, (J.A22030/02 2002 PA SUPER 320)
Superior
Court 638 MDA 2001, decided October 17, 2002
The Superior Court found the following anti-loitering ordinance of the City
of York, Pennsylvania to be unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v EARNEST GATLING (J-49-2002)
Supreme Court 35 EAP 2001,
decided October 1, 2002
This case sets the definitive standard for determining when convictions should merge for
the purposes of sentencing. "The preliminary consideration is whether the facts on which
both offenses are charged constitute one solitary criminal act. If the offenses stem from
two different criminal acts, merger analysis is not required. If, however, the
event constitutes a single criminal act, a court must then determine whether or not the two
convictions should merge. In order for the two convictions to merge (1) the crimes must be
greater and lesser-included offenses; and (2) the crimes charged must be based on the same
facts (footnote nine describes what is a lesser-included offense of another crime). If the
crimes are greater and lesser-included offenses and are based on the same facts, the court
should merge the convictions for
> sentencing purposes; if either prong is not met,
however, merger is inappropriate.
Click here to read more on the case.
September, 2002
COMMONWEALTH v HENRY WILLIAMS (J.A06005/02 2002 PA SUPER 299)
Superior Court
1290 EDA 2001, decided September 20, 2002
Defendant was charged with possession of drugs, intent to deliver and possession
of instruments of crime. In this case the instrument of crime was a
walkie-talkie that he used to facilitate the deal. He was found guilty on
all charges. The Court reversed the guilty verdict on the charge of PIC
because the use of an item to facilitate a crime does not transform the
item into an instrument of crime for the purposes of PIC statute.
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a06005_02.pdf
This is a California case that deals with DNA using the RFLP method-
PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS OPINION IS 180 PAGES
If you wish to view this opinion once you are at the cite go to 5th appellate district,
then clik see opinions, then go to P. v pizzarro F030754.DOC if you view
this version of the opinion you will be able to see the exhibits while you read the opinion.
Click here to read more on the case.
August, 2002
COMMONWEALTH v FRANK MOORE (J.A20028/02- 2002
PA SUPER 261)
Superior Court 1433 MDA 2001- decided August 9, 2002
This case gives a good review of the factors needed to determine the existence of
"reasonable suspicion" to search a probationer.
Click here to read more on the case.
July, 2002
COMMONWEALTH v BERNARD DALE KELLEY (J-88-2002)
Supreme Court 165 MAP 2001, decided July 19, 2002
The defendant was charged with 42 counts of sexual assault based on the
evidence of digital penetration of the victim. The Supreme Court held that
digital penetration will not sustain a charge of sexual assault 18 Pa.C.S.
Section 3124.1
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v CASSANDRA A. AARON (J.E01003/02 2002 PA SUPER 235)
Superior Court 553 WDA 2000, decided July 17, 2002
This case is a good review of Rule 600, and what due diligence means on the
part of the Commonwealth.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v ERNEST GENE GUNN (J.S01004/02 2002 PA SUPER 222)
Superior Court 914 WDA 2001, decided July 8, 2002
The defendant was sentenced pursuant to the mandatory sentencing
provisions of 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 9714 (a)(2), the crime of violence used
by the Commonwealth was a prior conviction for conspiracy. The defendant
was originally charged with aggravated assault section 2702(a)(1) and 2702
(a)(4) and conspiracy. The Commonwealth withdrew all the aggravated assault
charges and the defendant pled guilty only to conspiracy. The Commonwealth
filed to present any evidence that the previous conviction was a conviction
for violence and therefore the defendant was subjected to an illegal sentence.
Click here to read more on the case.
May, 2002
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v ZELDA JEAN GRAHAM (J.A11033/02)
Superior
Court No. 1352 WDA 2001, decided May 14, 2002
Since 18 Pa..C.S. Section 6317 which requires a mandatory
sentence for deliver of a controlled substance within 1000 feet of a school-
yard, is not an essential element for a conviction of possession with intent
to deliver a controlled substance, this factor need not be submitted for
finding by a jury.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA V FRANK LEE KROUSE (J.E01002/02)
Superior Court No. 576 WDA 2001, decided May 20, 2002
This case gives a good review of what it takes for the Commonwealth to prove by clear
and convincing evidence that a defendant is a sexually violent predator
under Megan's Law.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v ALMA MACK (J-127-2001)
Supreme Court No. 54 EPA 2000, decided May 20, 2002
The defendant was stopped at the airport suspected of carrying a controlled substance in her
bag. The police requested her consent to search her bag and informed her
that is she declined to give her consent they would secure a search warrant.
The Court found this to be a valid consent.
Click here to read more on the case.
April, 2002
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v ERIC J. MAGLIOCCO
(J.A38006/01 2002 PA
SUPER 127)
Superior Court 1487 EDA 2000, decided April 30, 2002
The defendant in this case was found guilty of ethnic
intimidation and possession of an instrument of crime in connection with
an incident where he waved a bat and yelled racial epithet at two young
girls and a police officer. The Superior Court reversed the conviction
because the Commonwealth failed to present any evidence that a significant
proportion of assaults involve baseball bats. The Superior Court found
that the definition of "instrument of crimes" that is contained in Purdons
18 Pa.C.S. Section 907(d)(2) differs from the official report from the
Laws of Pennsylvania. The reproduced copy in Purdons omits the word
"commonly" from the definition.
The ethnic intimidation charge did not stand because the jury found him
not guilty of the predicate offense of terroristic threats and without the
predicate offense you can not convict on the crime of ethnic intimidation.
Click here to read more on the case.
March, 2002
COMMONWEALTH v JOHN D. SLONAKER (J-A44018-01 2002 PA SUPER 66)
Superior
Court 436 MDA 2001, decided March 14, 2002
The 70 years old defendant was arrested and charged with DUI.
He made a motion to suppress the filed sobriety test and the BAC test
results. The trial court suppressed the results of the field sobriety
test but allowed the BAC results to be admitted. The Superior Court
upheld the conviction but in a footnote it explained why the court
suppressed the filed sobriety test: "The Court suppressed the results of
the field sobriety tests as Appellant was seventy years old and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Manual indicated that
these tests were not designed for persons over sixty years old."
Click here to read more on the case.
February, 2002
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v TIMOTHY RICE [J-9-2001]
Supreme Court No. 253 Capital Appeal Docket, decided February 20, 2001
Under Pennsylvania Law during the penalty phase of a capital
case the jury can consider victim impact testimony only if they find any
aggravating or any mitigating circumstances.
Click here to read more on the case.
IN THE INTEREST OF R.H. APPEAL OF R.H. [J-182-2000]
Supreme Court No. 96 M.D. Appeal Docket 2000, decided February 21, 2002
This case gives a good review of when a school; "police officer" should be considered
a "law enforcement officer" within the purview of Miranda.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v MICHAEL J. TRAVAGLIA (J-S78001-10 2002 PA SUPER 37)
Superior Court No. 1754 WDA 2000, decided February 19, 2001
During the penalty phase of a capital case if the prosecution does not raise the
issue of the defendant's future dangerousness, the Court may not phrase it's jury
instruction to include the language life in prison without the possibility of parole.
If the Court is required to give a Simmons instruction they the Court must include the
language "the Governor has the power to grant a commutation of a sentence of life or
death if based on the recommendation of the Board of Pardons following a public hearing."
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v GIDEON ASAMOAH (J.A44028/01 2002 PA SUPER 43)
Superior Court No. 2106 MDA 2000, decided February 21, 2002
This is just an interesting case where the Court interprets Section 780-113(35)(v)(d)
which is a defense for selling a "copy cat" drug.
Click here to read more on the case.
January, 2002
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v GARY R. HUGGINS (J.E01005/01 2002 PA
SUPER 5)
Superior Court 1373 MDA 2000, decided January 10, 2002
Defendant fell asleep and crashed a van containing 24 people
traveling at a speed of approximately 78 miles in a 55 miles per hour
speed zone. As a result of this accident 16 of the occupants sustained
injuries and two occupants died as a result of this accident. The
defendant was charged with numerous charges including two counts of
involuntary manslaughter and two counts of homicide by vehicle. The
defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges of involuntary
manslaughter and homicide by vehicle. The trial court dismissed the
charge of involuntary manslaughter. Superior Court affirmed. They found
that the act of falling asleep while driving evidences a careless
disregard of the safety of others it does not standing alone,
demonstrate a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustified risk,
i.e. "recklessness or gross negligence" which is required to support a
conviction of involuntary manslaughter. To support this claim the
Commonwealth would have to prove that the defendant knew he would fall
asleep and with this knowledge still choose to drive.
Click here
to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH V KAREN LEE RICHTER (J-E03005-01 2002 PA SUPER 7)
Superior Court no. 97 EDA 2001, decided January 11, 2002
An anonymous call, which involved a domestic disturbance including
someone with a gun, was sufficient to create exigent circumstance that
would allow police to enter the home without a warrant. It is worth
reading the dissent in this case.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v FRANK SYNO (J.S72017/01 2002 PA SUPER 8)
Superior Court 698 MDA 2001, decided January 15, 2002
Before the defendant pled guilty to one count of possession of
a controlled substance the County Adult Probation Department denied the
defendants application to be admitted into the Intermediate Punishment
Program (IPP), at sentencing the Trial Court sentenced the defendant to
a term of incarceration of 90 days and to the Intermediate Punishment Program
(IPP) for a two- year period, of which the first six (6) months were
house arrest with electronic monitoring. The Commonwealth on appeal
argued that in accordance with 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 9804(b) the trial
court may not sentence the defendant to IPP unless (1) the sentence is
pursuant to a county IPP that follows the guidelines of the Pennsylvania
Commission on Crime and Delinquency and (2) the County Adult Probation
Department approves the defendant's application for an IPP. The
Superior Court disagreed with the Commonwealth's reading of the statute
and concluded that nowhere in the statute does it state the eligibility
of a defendant is to be determined by the County Adult Probation
Department and there is no statutory provision that empowers the County
Adult Probation Department with the authority to grant or deny
alternative sentencing to the defendant.
Click here to read more on the case.
|
|
|
