|
|
|
Archives of PA Criminal Cases (2003) |
|
|
Index of 2003 Archives
|
|
|
|
Case Summaries
|
December, 2003
JAMES T. MARTIN v PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
Supreme Court 189 MAP 2002 decided December 30, 2003
When an offender is incarcerated on both a Parole Board detainer and a new criminal charge all
time spent in confinement must be credited to either a new sentence or the original sentence.
Click here to read more.
CARL R. GRADY AND DIANA GRADY v FRITO-LAY (J15-2003)
Supreme Court 43 WAP 2002 decided December 31, 2003
This case reaffirms that the Frye v United States is still the standard that is used for determining
the admissibly of evidence in Pennsylvania.
Click here to read more.
COMMONWEALTH v ALEX HAGUE (JS71304/03 2003 PA SUPER 513)
Superior Court 1424 EDA 2003 decided December 31, 2003
The defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter at his sentencing hearing before the judge imposed
sentence he asked the defendant "Is there anything in addition you want to say? He was ultimately sentenced
to a term of 10 to 20 years incarceration. The defendant claimed his counsel was ineffective for failing to
ensure that he had his right of allocution. The Superior Court agreed and found the judge did not fulfill
its obligation and the defendant was denied a full opportunity for allocution.
Click here to read more.
IN RE: MATTER OF S.A.S. (J.S38039/03 2003 PA SUPER 494)
Superior Court 1981 MDA 2002 decided December 17, 2003
The Juvenile Act allows for a period of probation that exceeds the statutory maximum possible term of adult
incarceration for the particular offense at issue.
UNITED STATES v BANKS
United States Supreme Court No. 02-473 decided December 2, 2003
To determine the amount of time that is reasonable before police with a warrant must wait before entering
without permission after knocking and announcing their intent in a felony case depends of how long it would
take for the defendant to destroy evidence thus creating an exigency circumstances which would allow the
police to break in the dwelling. In this case the police waited 15-20 seconds before they broke the door
and gained entrance. The defendant was a suspected drug dealer, the Supreme Court found that 15 -20 seconds
was ample time to destroy any evidence and upheld the actions of the police.
COMMONWEALTH v MICHAEL SERGE, (J-A10033-03 2003 PA SUPER 470)
Superior Court 423 MDA 2002 decided December 3, 2003
The defendant was on trial for Murder. The Commonwealth wanted to introduce a computer recreation
of the crime to assist the experts in their testimony. The trial court allowed this evidence into the trial.
The defendant was ultimately convicted of first degree murder. The issue of allowing computer generated animation
as demonstrative evidence used to explain or illustrate expert witness testimony in a criminal case is an issue
of first impression in this Commonwealth. The Superior Court concluded that if the party proposing to introduce
this evidence meets the established foundational requirements that the animation can be introduced into evidence.
Click here to read more.
November, 2003
COMMONWEALTH v WILLIAM STRONG (J-16-2003)
Supreme Court 53 WAP 2002 decided November 25, 2003
The jury may not review materials not marked as an exhibit or entered into evidence. If this
occurs it is a violation of Pa.R. Crim 646, if the violation occurs it is not a prejudicial per se
requiring a new trial, but rather this error is subject to an harmless error anaylsis.
Click here to read more.
COMMONWEALTH v JEROME JASON HUGHES (J-065-2003)
Supreme Court 125 MAP 2002 decided November 25, 2003
The defendant who was on parole was standing outside of a bar, when two police officers rode by
one of the officers recognized the defendant as one of his parolees. The officers drove around the
block in an attempt to talk to him. When they found the defendant not there they went to the address
that was his approved residence. When they approached the front steps, three young girls were standing
outside. The officers asked if the defendant was inside, they said they did not know and then the
officers requested permission to enter the residence. After they received permission from the girls
they entered the house and found the defendant and drugs and paraphernalia. He was ultimately arrested
and convicted of possession of drugs. The Supreme Court found that given these circumstances the
officer did not have sufficient grounds to search his home. The next question is whether the
"apparent authority" exception applies under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The Court found that given the defendant statutes as a person on parole the apparent authority exception
is constitutional, however the did not decided the question of whether "apparent authority" would be
constitutional for an average citizen.
Click here to read more.
COMMONWEALTH v RICHARD JOSEPH COSNEK (J-10-2003)
Supreme Court 21 WAP 2002 decided November 24, 2003
The Commonwealth may not certify an interlocutory appeal from a pre-trial ruling excluding certain
evidence.
Click here to read more.
COMMONWEALTH v KEVIN ALSTON (J.A09023/02 (2003 PA SUPER 49)
Superior Court 1961 EDA 2001 decided November 24, 2003
This case gives a good review of the Rape Shield Law
Click here to read more.
October, 2003
COMMONWEALTH v DAVID MOCKAITIS (J-173-2001)
Supreme Court 32 MAP 2001, decided October 16, 2003
The Supreme Court has found the provision of Act 63 that requires the installation of the ignition
interlock system upon serial DUI offenders who wish to have their license restored after the mandatory
one year suspension is constitutional. The provision of the Act that delegates the executive
responsibility of the system to the courts is unconstitutional.
Click here to read more.
COMMONWEALTH v LORING WEST (JA09016/03)(2003 PA SUPER 380)
Superior Court 1142 EDA 2002 decided October 10, 2003
This case gives a good review of when a police officer can get the results of a blood test taken at
the hospital for independent medical reasons.
Click here to read more.
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.
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.
COMMONWEALTH v RICAHRD DEMARCO (J-75-2002)
Supreme Court 95 MAP 2001, Decided May 14, 2002
This case gives a good review of when the defense of duress is permitted along with the proper jury
instruction.
Click here to read more.
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.
September, 2003
The Pennsylvania Bulletin has issued a new rule of evidence concerning expert and opinion testimony.
Click here to read more.
COMMONWEALTH v JOSEPH BAVUSA (J-210-2002)
Supreme Court 48 EAP 2000, decided September 29, 2003
The defendant was arrested and charged with the crime of carrying a firearm without a license. He was
convicted of this charge as a felony of the third degree. He argued when the Pennsylvania General
Assembly amended this section to allow a grading to a misdemeanor under certain circumstances, this added
two additional elements that the Commonwealth would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a
felony conviction. The Supreme Court concluded that when the General Assembly amended this section it was
not adding additional elements to the core crime, but rather adding sentencing factors. The Court did not
address the question of which party has the burden of proving the appropriate grading of a Section 6106
offense at sentencing.
Click here to read more.
COMMONWEALTH v REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS COMMONLY KNOWN AS 5444 SPRUCE STREET,
PHILADELPHIA, PA AND ELIZABETH A. LEWIS
Supreme Court 26 EPA 2002, decided September 24, 2003
The defendant pled guilty to a single count of possession of drugs with the intent to
deliver, she was sentenced to two years probation. Since the crime occurred in her house,
the Commonwealth sought to have the house forfeited. The Commonwealth and Superior Court agreed
the forfeiture was warranted in this case. The Supreme Court recognized that both the Commonwealth
and Superior Court could not have reached the correct conclusion because there was no testimony
regarding the value of the house which is necessary to follow the correct standard as set forth in
Bajakajian, that requires that in cases where punitive forfeiture is involved, the court must compare
the amount of the forfeiture to the gravity of the defendant's offense. If the amount of the
forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendants offense it is unconstitutional.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JOSEPH CUEVAS (J-157-2002)
Supreme Court 363 CAP 2003, decided September 24, 2003
The defendant was convicted of first degree murder and was sentenced to death. During the penalty
phase the Commonwealth presented two aggravating factors, (1) the crime was committed with torture
and (2) the killing was the product of drug activity. To support this contention the Commonwealth
presented the following evidence: the defendant killed the victim in retaliation over a dispute about
a drug sale that had occurred previous to the killing. The Commonwealth position was they needed only
to show involvement, association or competition and does not require the killing be intended to promote
the defendants drug activity. This reasoning is incorrect. This aggravating factor to apply must show
that the defendant killed for the specific purpose of promoting his drug activity.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JEFFREY TAYLOR (J-51-2003)
Supreme Court 59 WAP 2002, decided September 10, 2003
This case clarifies the conflict between the Courts holding in Verticelli and it's holding in Bardo, in
relation to the corpus delicti rule. The purpose behind the corpus delicti rule is the ultimate
consideration in determining whether two crimes are closely related so as to implicate the exception.
Where the relationship between the crimes to which the defendant has confessed is close and the policy
underlying the corpus delicti rule- to avoid convictions for crimes that did not occur- is not violated,
the exception renders the confession admissible for all closely related matters.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v GEORGE BURKHARDT (J.E02010-03)
Superior Court 1618 MDA 2003, decided September 22, 2003
This case gives a good review of when an agreement between the prosecutor and a co-conspirator must be
revealed to the defense prior to trial.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v EDWARD DUFFY (J.A27021/03)
Superior Court 2353 EDA 2002, decided September 16, 2003
The crimes of Statutory Sexual Assault and Sexual Assault are not greater and lesser included offenses.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v VANDERLEE STEVENSON (J.A09038/03)
Superior Court 1330 WDA 2001, decided September 16, 2003
Where the police act on an unsubstantiated radio broadcast that a person is engaged in narcotics
activity and a mere assumption that the person is currently driving under suspension (based on the fact
that three years previously this officer stopped the defendant and found that his license was suspended),
and where police fail to articulate grounds to support an allegation that the person is unlawfully parked,
the police have failed to show the requisite reasonable basis for an investigative detention.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v REGINALD GADSDEN (J.S36020/03)
Superior Court 1524 MDA 2002, decided September 10, 2003
When appellate counsel files to file a petition for allocatur with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
following the disposition of the direct appeal to the Superior Court, that issue is cognizable under the
PCRA.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v GERALD JOHN DELBRIDGE (J-61-2002)
Supreme Court 150 MAP 2001, decided September 25, 2003
The defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of sexual assault against his two young minor
children, whose ages were six and four at the time of the assaults. Prior to the competency hearing the
defendant wanted to introduce expert evidence of "taint" as to the children's competency. The trial
court denied this request, because it agreed with the Commonwealth that this type of inquiry goes to the
credibility and not competency of the children. The Supreme Court disagreed with both the trial and
Superior Courts and determined that the issue of "taint" is a legitimate question of examination in cases
involving complaints of sexual abuse made by young children. And the competency hearing is the appropriate
venue.
The defendant also raised the question of whether during the competency phase he be allowed to cross-examine
the victims as to their specific recollection of the events in question, the Supreme Court found in certain
circumstances this line of inquiry may be appropriate. In this case the line of inquiry during
cross-examination of the children may take place to ask legitimate questions as to the details of the events
where it is supported by some evidence demonstrating the link between the actual questions and the alleged
taint. The Court would also allow questions of the children to test the accuracy of statements made to
third parties.
The defendant also wanted to present expert testimony on the question of reliability of the hearsay
statements to third parties. The trial court rejected the expert that the defendant used, based on the
fact that he was not qualified as to this issue. The Supreme Court only addressed the issue if the trial
court abused its discretion in rejecting the experts qualifications, they did not address the broader issue
of whether this is appropriate type of evidence that would met the Frye standard, was not addressed.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONNWEALTH v GOMER ROBERT WILLIMAS, BRUCE PETERS (J-98-2002)
Supreme Court 61-64 WAP 2001, decided September 25, 2002
Megan's Law registration, notification, and counseling provisions are constitutional. The penalty for
failing to register under 9795.1(b)(3), which would subject the defendant to a possible life time
imprisonment is unconstitutionally punitive. The Supreme Court did not address the validity of section
9795.1(b)(1) or (2), which deals with the ten year registration period and punishment.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v EILEEN MAYFIELD (J-52-2003)
Supreme Court 11 MAP 2002, decided September 24, 2003
The Institutional Sexual Assault Statute 18 Pa.C.S Section 3124.2 is constitutional
COMMONWEALTH v ALFONSO F. CARTER (J-S14022-03)
Superior Court 912 MDA 2002, decided September 26, 2003
The defendant was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance during his trial the
Commonwealth presented the lab report that indicated that the drugs found in the defendant's car was 11.6
grams of cocaine. The chemist who actually performed the test was unavailable for trial so the Commonwealth
presented the testimony of the manager of the lab to testify about the results. The defense objected that
the report was hearsay the trial court overruled this objection based on the fact that the report was to be
admitted under the records of regularly conducted activity exception to hearsay. The Superior Court
disagreed the report in question was not a routine report but rather a report specific to this case. This
report was specifically created for this case and the defense should have had to opportunity to
cross-examine the person responsible for creating this report.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v KWASI HUSANI JOHNSON (J.S09044/03)
Superior Court 1329 MDA 2002, decided September 25, 2003
This case is another example of when an initial detention had ended when a police officer lawfully stops a
vehicle.
Click here to read more on the case.
August, 2003
COMMONWEALTH v JONATHAN N. WEGLEY (J-201-2002)
Supreme Court No. 101 MAP 2002 decided August 6, 2003
A defendant serving an intermediate punishment sentence in electronic home
monitoring house arrest can be charged with escape if he tamper with or breaks the
device.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v EUGENE LEE STANLEY (J-A20318/03 2003 PA SUPER 289)
Superior Court 1187 & 1215 WDA 2002 decided August 7, 2003
When counsel fails to request a Thompson Instruction after the defendant specifically
request one, is not per se ineffectiveness but rather the court must conduct the
standard three-part ineffectiveness test.
Click here to read more on the case.
July, 2003
COMMONWEALTH v RONDU A. BETHEA (J-76-2002)
Supreme Court No. 79 MAP 2001, decided July 22, 2003
The Supreme Court clarifies the holding in McPhail in terms of subject matter
jurisdiction and venue.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v REGINALD JOHNSON (J-149-2002)
Supreme Court 50 EAP 2001, decided July 22, 2003
After the defendants trial and during jury deliberations the jury came back with
a question, the judge decided because it would be an inconvenience to bring the
defendant back into the court room instructed counsel that he would answer the
jury's question without counsel and the defendant present. The defendant was
subsequently found guilty of all charges. The Superior Court found that the
defendant did have a right to be present and to be represented this
communication with the jury was deemed to be an ex parte communication and
therefore subject to a harmless error analysis and since the defendant could
not prove prejudice the error was harmless. The Supreme Court has reversed
the Superior Court because the denial of trial counsel during the reiterative
jury instructions is a critical stage of the proceedings therefore the defendant
is entitled to counsel and prejudiced is presumed.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v RICHARD BUFFINGTON (J-13-2003)
Supreme Court 46 WAP 2002, decided July 22, 2003
The defendant was charged with rape by forcible compulsion and/or of an unconscious
person, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion and /or of an
unconscious person, and sexual assault and related charges. After a jury trial the
defendant was found not guilty on all charges but the jury could not agree on a
verdict of sexual assault charge. The Supreme Court found that although sexual
assault is a lesser included offense of the rape and involuntary deviate sexual
intercourse, elemental double jeopardy analysis does not bar the retrial on the
sexual assault charge.
Click here to read more on the case.
June, 2003
STOGER v CALIFORNIA
United States Supreme Court No, 01-1757 Decided June 26, 2003
A law enacted after the expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the
Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution.
Click here to read more on the case.
WIGGINS v SMITH, WARDEN, ET AL.
United States Supreme Court No. 02-311 Decided June 26, 2003
This case sets out what is needed to render effective assistance of counsel for a
death penalty case.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v ALTON JOHN FIELD (J.A04034/03 2003 PA SUPER 243)
Superior Court No. 2479 EDA 2002, Decided June 24, 2003
18 Pa.C.S. Section 102 allows for a trial to take place within the county in
which a homicide victim is found.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JOHN PREACHER (J.S26023-03 2003 PA SUPER 245)
Superior Court No. 3047 EDA 2002 Decided June 24, 2003 (DELAWARE COUNTY CASE
JUDGE KOUDILIS)
This case reinforces the aspects of Terry that before an officer can search a defendant
they must have specific and articulate reasons to fear for their safety.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v THOMAS DILLION (J-A08022-03 2003 PA SUPER 235)
Superior Court No. 1772 EDA 2002 Decided June 19, 2003
The defendant was charged with involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and related
charges. The Commonwealth wanted to introduce evidence of other crimes, wrongs and acts
committed by the defendant, to explain the reasons why the victim did not promptly report
the crime. The Court ruled the prior acts inadmissible because the victim in this case was
a minor and therefore the crimes are a strict liability crime, and the evidence of prior bad
acts would only prejudice the defendant. The Superior Court agreed and concluded that in
interpreting Commonwealth v Berger the admission of prior bad acts could only be admitted if
the defense raises the issue of failure of prompt complaint.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v ROBERT RIVERA (J.A04038/03 2003 PA SUPER 238)
Superior Court 1317 EDA 2002 Decided June 20, 2003
A parent can be convicted of kidnapping his own child under 18 Pa.C.S.A.
Section 29019(a)(3)
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JOHN C. PAXSON S23034/03 2003 PA SUPER 215
Superior Court 2477 EDA 2002 decided June 2, 2003
If anyone operating a vehicle after the expiration of his
suspension, but before the restoration of his license, is guilty of
violating 75 Pa.C.S. A. Section 1543(a).
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v MARIE ANN MANERS A13040/03 2003 PA SUPER 216
Superior Court 3270 EDA 2002 decided June 2, 2003
The affirmative defense of justification as defined in 18 Pa.C.S.A.
Section 503 is available to use when defending 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section
1543(b).
Click here to read more on the case.
SELL v UNITED STATES No. 02-5664
United States Supreme Court, decided June 16, 2003
The United States Constitution permits the government to involuntarily to
administer antipsychotic drugs to render a mentally ill defendant
competent to stand trial on serious charges. This standard will permit
forced medication solely for trial competence purposes in certain
instances. But these instances may be rare, because the standard says or
fairly implies the following: (1) a court must find an important
governmental interests are at stake. (2) the court must conclude that
forced medication will significantly further those concomitant interest in
assuring the defendant a fair trial. (3) the court must conclude that
involuntary medication is necessary to further those interest and find
that alternative less intrusive treatments are unlikely to achieve
substantially the same results. (4) the court must conclude that
administering the drugs is medically appropriate.
OVERTON, DIRECTOR, MICHIGANSEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL, v BAZZETTA, ET AL.
United States Supreme Court, decided June 16, 2003
To combat illegal drug and alcohol use in the prison the Michigan Department
of Corrections implemented the following policies:
1. an inmate may be visited by qualified clergy and attorney's on business
and by persons placed on an approved list which my include an unlimited number of
immediate family members and ten others
2. minor children are not permitted to visit unless they are the children, stepchildren,
grandchildren, or siblings of the inmate (if the parental rights of the inmate have been
terminated then the children are not allowed to visit) a child visitor must be accompanied
by a family member of the child or inmate or the child's legal guardian
3. former prisoners are not permitted to visit except that a former prisoner who is an
immediate family member of an inmate may visit if the warden approves.
4. prisoners who commit two substance-abuse violations may receive only clergy and attorneys,
but may apply for reinstatement of visitation privileges after two years.
The Supreme Court held that the regulations bear a rational relation to legitimate penological
interest suffices to sustain then regardless of whether the defendants have a constitutional
right of association that has survived incarceration.
COMMONWEALTH v MATTHEW BORMACK (J.A40040/02 2003 PA SUPER 228)
Superior Court decided June 16, 2003
In the Pennsylvania you are not permitted to present an expert witness to testify
about human memory and perception.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v BELAK (J-117-2002)
Supreme Court No. 91 -92 WAP 2001, decided June 17, 2003
42 Pa.C.S Section 9714(a)(2) is severable from 42 Pa.C.S.Section 9714(a)(1)
which was found to be unconstitutional.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v NELSON BISHOP (J-S20024-03 2003 PA SUPER 226)
Superior Court EDA 1640 EDA 2002 decided June 12, 2003
This case gives a review of the definition of "intent" to be convicted of
aggravated assault.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v ROBERT BOOKER JONES (J-E04005/02 2003 PA SUPER 220)
Superior Court 1821 WDA 2000 decided June 9, 2003
The defendant was charged with rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
and aggravated assault. The theory of the defense's case was the woman was a
prostitute and the sex was consensual and he paid her. The defendant and the
victim had a prior history of consensual sex. The defense wanted question the
victim about her prior sexual history with the defendant along with her history
of prostitution. After the hearing the trial court allowed the defendants history
with the victim would be admissible but acts with third parties before the rape
would be excluded and the one conviction for prostitution that had occurred after
the rape with a third party would be admissible. The Commonwealth filed an interlocutory
appeal. A divided court ruled that this type of appeal could be filed by the
Commonwealth and the Superior Court has jurisdiction. They also ruled that the
information about the conviction after the rape would not be allowed into evidence.
It is strongly recommended that you read the dissents in this case.
Click here to read more on the case.
May, 2003
COMMONWEALTH v ROBERT FREEMAN J-50-2003
Supreme Court 234 Capital Appeal Docket decided May 30, 2003
The relaxed waiver policy employed by the Supreme Court in
reviewing capital cases on direct appeal will now be implemented in the
context of a PCRA Petition not on direct appeal
Click here to read more on the case.
April, 2003
COMMONWEALTH v JEAN TOUT-PUISSANT (J.S04041/03 2003 PA SUPER 161 2544 EDA 2002)
Superior Court 2544 EDA 2002 decided April 25, 2003
Defendant was charged with simple assault and numerous
offenses. He spent 7 days incarcerated until he was able to post bail.
After pleading guilty he was sentenced to one year of intermediate
punishment. Included in this punishment was a two-week nighttime
commitment at the county prison. The Court refused to credit him with the
7 days spent in jail. The Superior Court reversed and held the defendant
is entitled to the 7 days he served in pre-trial confinement.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JAMES L. GILLESPIE [J-93-2002]
Supreme Court 15 MAP 2002 decided April 25, 2003
For a conviction under 18 Pa.C.S. Section 6105 (persons not to possess,
use, manufacture, control, sell or transform firearms) barrel length is no
longer an essential element of the crime.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEATLH v RICHARD D. CARBO (J-E03005-02 2003 PA SUPER 145)
Superior Court 730 EDA 2001 decided April 11, 2003
The defendant was arrested and charged with various offenses.
At the preliminary hearing the charges were dismissed for failing to make
a prima facie case. The Commonwealth refilled the identical criminal
complaint and affidavit of probable cause. The defendant filed a habeas
corpus petition with the Trial Court to dismiss the refilled charges
because the Commonwealth as failed to present new evidence as required by
Moore. The requirement that the Commonwealth must possess new evidence
either not available or discoverable prior to the first preliminary
hearing in order to refile charges it is overruled.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v LAWRENCE J. SARGENT (J-S5011-03 2003 PA SUPER 150)
Superior Court 1460 EDA 2002 decided April 22, 2003
Under 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4101 an individual may be convicted of
a third-degree felony when he fraudulently signs the credit card sales receipt.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v DAVID RODRIGUEZ (J-A37022/02 2003. PA SUPER 156)
Superior Court 809 EDA 2002 decided April 23, 2003
The defendant and his co-defendant were involved with a drug
deal. The defendant went to meet two people to complete a kilo of cocaine
deal, the co-defendant was invited to come along. While all four people
were in the car, the victim told the defendant that he did not have enough
money to complete the deal, the defendant agreed to meet again when he had
all the money. At this point the co-defendant opened fired and shot the
two men. One of the men was killed and the other was injured. The
co-defendant was charged with first- degree murder and the defendant was
charged with second-degree murder. The defendant elected to have a bench
trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the Judge found that the defendant
not guilty of robbery, did not have the intent to shoot or did not
conspire to kill and not guilty of the firearms violations. He was also
found not guilty of the drug charge because the Commonwealth charge
marijuana and she believed that the drug was cocaine. The defendant was
found guilty of second-degree murder because the natural consequences of
the drug deal would be violent. The Superior Court reversed because under
the felony rule drug dealing is not listed.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JAMES LINCOLN STRONG (J.S80003/02 2003 PA SUPER 157)
Superior Court 1586,1595,1999 MDA 2001 decided April 23, 2003
This case gives a good review of when the Commonwealth has to
reveal when a witness is going to receive favorable treatment for
impeachment purposes.
Click here to read more on the case.
March, 2003
COMMONWEALTH v MICHELLE M. HETZEL 982 EDA 2002, BRANDON BLOSS 1016 EDA 2002 ( J.A40034/02 & A40035/02)
Superior Court 982 EDA 2002- 1016 EDA 2002 decided March 14,2002
This case gives a good review of what constitutes attorney work product.
It also review the harmless error analysis.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JOHN A. GUFF 9J.S17014/02 2003 PA SUPER 126) Superior Court 958 MDA 2001
decided March 27, 2003
This case gives a good review of what is necessary to convict under attempting to inflict serious
bodily harm of the aggravated assault statute. The most important part of this opinion is the dissent.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v CHARLES ADRIAN SULLIVAN (J-A39038-02 2003 PA SUPER 123) Superior Court 422 WDA 2002
decided March 25, 2003
The defendant was convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter in connection with an incident that had
occurred on November 8, 2003. During the trial, the arresting officer testified that he defendant said he
"cocked" the hammer of the gun and it went off. This statement was not turned over to the Commonwealth and
in fact this was the first time the Commonwealth had this information. Prior to the trial the Commonwealth
had turned over all the statements that he defendant gave to the police officer and the fact that he had
"cocked" the hammer was not included in any of these statements. On Appeal the defendant argued that the
Commonwealth had violated Brady by failing to turn this statement over to the defense. The Superior Court
concluded that the Commonwealth did not violate Brady because this statement was not exculpatory but rather
inculpatory and therefore Brady is not implicated. Rule 573 (B)(1)(b) would be implicated because this
rule deals with inculpatory statements, but the Commonwealth is only obligated according to this rule to
turn over statements that are in their possession. In this case the Commonwealth did not have this
information and were not obligated to turn it over.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v MICAH DALES (JA01019/03 2003 PA SUPER 118) Superior Court 2010 EDA 2002 decided March 25, 2003
This case gives a good review of when consent to search one's automobile is "voluntary" after a legal
traffic stop.
Click here to read more on the case.
IN THE INTEREST OF D.B. (JS82027/02 2003 PA SUPER 120) Superior Court 634 EDA 2002 decided March 25,2003
This case gives a good review of when the identity of a confidential informant must be turned over to the
defense.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v PATRICIA MCCARTHY (J.S06045/03 2003 PA SUPER 115) Superior Court 2300 EDA 2002
decided March 24, 2003
This case gives a review of what "custody" means for the purpose of Miranda warnings.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v DUNCAN (J-173-2002)
Supreme Court 50 E.D.A. 2000 decided March 4, 2003
The victim was walking down the street when she was approached by an unknown male and
was raped. She gave a description to the police. After further investigation the police
found that a man matching this description attempted to purchase something at a local
store using him ATM card. His card was declined. With this information the police
contacted the bank without a warrant to get his name, address and phone number. The
defendant was subsequently arrested and convicted of rape. The defendant relied on
Commonwealth v DeJohn to suppress the evidence. The Supreme Court concluded that when
the information gathered is only the name, address and phone number DeJohn is not
implicated and this information does not violate the defendants privacy rights under
Article 1 Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Click here to read more on the case.
IN THE INTEREST OF T.F.
Superior Court 1318 EDA 2001 decided March 4, 2003
This case reiterates the position that an exchange of unknown items on a street corner
even coupled with flight does not establish probable cause.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v ERIC NORRIS, (J.A36017/02 2003 PA SUPER 92)
Superior Court 212, 662 EDA 2002 decided March 10, 2003
If the Commonwealth seeks to impose 42 Pa.C.S.Section 9714(a)(2) ( mandatory sentence of
25 years under the "three strikes" law) the notice can just invoke this section generally
and does not have to specifically state if it is the imposition of two or three strikes.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v WINFREDO SANTIAGE (J-A40014-02 2003 PA SUPER 94)
Superior Court 2842 EDA 2002 decided March 10, 2003
This case gives a good review of the "law of the case doctrine".
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v LUANN WOOSMAN (J S. 07017/03 2003 PA SUPER 99)
Superior Court 1165 EDA 2002 decided March 12, 2003
The defendant was involved in a hit and run accident that resulted in a death. She was
charged with 75 Pa.C.S.Section 3742. Her defense was that she was not aware that she
had hit anyone, she requested the court to charge the jury that in order to be convicted
of the crime she knew or should have known that she was involved in an accident that
involved death or serious injury. The Trial Court refused to give this instruction. The
Superior Court concluded that the mens rea element is a necessary component of this
statute and that the court has to instruct the jury on this element.
Click here to read more on the case.
February, 2003
COMMONWEALTH v KENNETH D. TATE (J-194-2002)
Supreme Court 84 MAP 2002, decided February 19, 2003
The crime of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 2910 luring a child into a motor vehicle does not
encompass the attempt to lure a child into a motor vehicle.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v PAUL ROBINSON (J.A18039/02 2003 PA SUPER 61)
Superior Court 1396 EDA 2001 decided February 14, 2003
This case gives a good review of what exactly is needed to prove "intent" to cause
bodily harm to be convicted of aggravated assault.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v THOMAS J. ALTADONNA, JR.,(J.S89034/02 2003 PA SUPER 59)
Superior Court 1070 WDA 2002 decided February 13, 2003
This case gives a good review of the parameters set forth for a parole officer to
search a parolee or his property.
Click here to read more on the case.
ALLEN TRACH v J. FELLIN AND THRIFT DRUG/ECKARD STORE,
Superior Court 1921-1949-2000, decided February 11, 2003
In this case the Court revisited the issue of Frye and concluded that Frye
only applies to determine if the relevant scientific community has generally accepted
the principles and the methodology the scientist employs, not the conclusions the
scientist reaches, before the court may allow the testimony. It also explains determined
when the extrapolation method may be used by the expert during the trial.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v ELLIOTT RYERSON ( J-S88023-02 2003 PA SUPER
Superior Court 648 MDA 2002 decided February 6, 2003
This case gives a good review of the requirements of a search warrant. It also reinforced
that Apprendi is not implicated in a case
> where minimum mandatory sentences are
given if they do not exceed the maximum sentence allowed.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLVANIA v ANIL L. RAQSTOGI (J.A37020/02 2003 PA SUPER
Superior Court 1102 EDA 2002 decided February 5, 2003
The defendant was pulled over and arrested at a road block for DUI, he filed a
suppression motion claiming the stop was illegal because the police did not give
advance publicity concerning the establishment of the road block. In this case the notice
given were signs that were posted before the stop. Nothing was published in any paper.
The Court concluded
> that there is no requirement that the police advertise or
notify the media of the location of the roadblock at all.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v ADAM VANSKIVER (J. E04002/02 2003 PA SUPER 78)
Superior Court 3070-2400 EDA 2001 decided February 26, 2003
Delaware County electronic home monitoring program does not constitute "custody" as
required under Commonwealth v Chiappini to receive credit for time on this program. The
Superior Court also emphasized that not all programs of house arrest with electronic
home monitoring may constitute custody for purposes of section 9760, rather the court
must examine each program on a case by case basis.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v MIRIAM WHITE (J.A06016 2003 PA SUPER 73)
Superior Court 3282 EDA 2000, decided February 25, 2003
The Commonwealth has a constitutional right to a jury trial.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v ANGEL LUIS BARBOSA (J. S83008/02 2003 PA SUPER 77)
Superior Court 152 MDA 2002 decided February 26, 2003
A defendant who enters a negotiated guilty plea must be informed of the maximum possible
sentence he could receive if he proceeded to trial. If there is misinformation or lack
of information was material to his decision to pled guilty then manifest injustice is
established and the plea may be withdrawn.
Click here to read more on the case.
MILLER-EL v CROCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TRXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL
DIVISION UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT NO. 01`-7662 DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 2003
This case gives a good review of what it takes to sustain a Batson challenge.
Click here to read more on the case.
January, 2003
COMMONWEALTH v MIQUEAS ACOSTA (J E02004/02 2003 PA SUPER 15)
Superior Court 95 EDA 2001 decided January 15, 2002
This is a good review of when consent is "voluntary" after a
legal traffic stop.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v CHARLES F. HOLDER (J A46018/00 2003 PA SUPER 20)
Superior Court 1057 EDA 2000 decided January 17, 2003
This case gives a good review of the purpose of the Rape Shield
Law and what evidence can and can not be admitted under this exception.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v TIMOTHY BALLARD (J.S84024/02 2003 PA SUPER 2)
Superior Court 1168 EDA 2002 decided January 6, 2003
This case gives a good review of when a technical violation can
be used to revoke a defendants parole.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v SEAN KEYS (J.A17004/02 2003 PA SUPER 5)
Superior Court 2447 EDA 2001 decided January 7, 2003
This case gives a good review of what does and does not
constitute an excited utterance.
Click here to read more on the case.
SATTAZHAN v PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-7574
United States Supreme Court decided January 14, 2003
The defendant was arrested and charged with murder in the first
degree with the death penalty. During the penalty phase the jury was
deadlock as to the penalty. According to the law the trial judge imposed
a sentence of life imprisonment. The defendant appealed and was granted a
new trial. The Commonwealth again requested the death penalty. This time
during the penalty phase the jury came back with a verdict of death. The
defendant appealed on the basis that to re-try on the death penalty
violated double jeopardy. The United States Supreme Court found that
because the original jury was deadlocked on the penalty and the trial
judge by law had to impose the life sentence jeopardy did not attach.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v ALTON ROY KUNKLE, JR. (J.A350003/02 2003 PA SUPER 12)
Superior Court 36 WDA 2002, decided January 14, 2003
The defendant pled guilty to a charge of Delivery of a
Controlled Substance. The Commonwealth provided notice that it was
seeking to invoke the mandatory minimum sentence per 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section
(a) at sentencing they failed to provide any evidence to support this
claim. The trial court still imposed the minimum mandatory sentence that
the Commonwealth requested. The defendant filed a motion for modification
of sentence. At this hearing the Commonwealth tired to present the
evidence that if failed to present at the original sentence. The trial
court modified the sentence and the Commonwealth appealed. The Superior
Court agreed and found that the Commonwealth was barred from presenting
evidence at the second sentencing hearing that should have been presented
at the first hearing to support the charge.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v PAUL L. REEFER(J-A29039-02 2003 PA SUPER 38)
Superior Court 812-1147 WDA 2002. decided January 30, 2003
Under 61 P.S. Section 81 the Trial Court does not have the
authority to change the sentence.
Click here to read more on the case.
|
|
|
