|
|
|
Find the latest PA Criminal Cases
|
|
Listed below in reverse
chronological order are summaries of recent Pennsylvania criminal cases.
The case summaries below are provided through the efforts of Spiros Angelos, Public Defender
of Delaware County, Pennsylvania and Susan Magee, Assistant Public Defender, Appeals Unit.
|
|
Recent Case Summaries
|
|
|
COMMONWEALTH v THADDEUS DAVID WILIIAMS (J.A39026/04 2005 PA SUPER 203)
Superior Court 771 MDA 2004 decided June 1, 2005
"Rule 600"
The defendant was arrested and charged with various offenses. Prior to trial the defendant was
released on bail, during this time he was involuntary committed for psychiatric treatment. Before his case
went to trial defense counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss the charges pursuant to Rule 600. The Superior Court
held when a defendant is free on bail although confined to a psychiatric hospital due diligence on the
Commonwealth's part is not implicated for Rule 600.
Click here to read more on the case.
IN THE INTEREST OF R.D.R., (J.S66028/04 2005 PA SUPER 204)
Superior Court 733 MDA 2004 decided June 1, 2005
"Fines/Juvenile"
The defendant wrote a check for 800 to purchase a car. When the victim attempted to collect the money
the check bounced. After numerous attempts to rectify the situation the defendant was convicted of writing a
bad check and was ordered to pay 800 in restitution and two years probation. During the sentencing hearing the
Commonwealth failed to request any restitution. On appeal the defendant claims the restitution order is
illegal. The Superior Court held under subsection (e) of the bad check statute the Commonwealth was not
required to ask for restitution in this matter.
Click here to read more on the case.
IN RE: PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT OF JOHN D. WILSON III (J.E03002/04 2005 PA SUPER 211)
Superior Court 211 WDA 2003 decided June 7, 2005
"Private Criminal Complaint"
The defendant was involved in an altercation with the police chief who was off duty at the time. As a
result of this altercation the defendant filed a private criminal complaint against the police chief, after
review by the District Attorney's office the complaint was denied. The defendant appealed this denial to the
Court of Common Pleas this court upheld the denial and this appeal followed. On appeal the defendant raised two
issues (1) was it err for the court to deny the complaint when there was evidence sufficient to establish a
prima facie case and (2) Whether the court erred in refusing to approve the complaint when the district
attorney's office abuse its discretion. The Superior Court held (this case was heard by nine judges the decision
was 6 to 3) when the district attorney disapproves a private criminal complaint solely on the basis of legal
conclusions, the trial court undertakes a de novo review of the matter. The appellate court will then review the
trial courts decision for an error of law. If the district attorney disapproves a private criminal complaint on
wholly policy considerations, or on a hybrid of legal and policy considerations, the trial court's standard of
review of the district attorney's decision is abuse of discretion. To prove this abuse the complainant has to
prove the district attorney decision amounted to bad faith, fraud or unconstitutionality and to prove these
factors the complainant must show specific factors to support this fact. The appellate court will then review
the trial courts decision whether the trial court misapprehended or misinterpreted the district attorney's
decision and without legitimate basis on the record, substituted its own judgment for that of the district
attorney.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v THOMAS W. HYLAND (J.A02017/05 2005 PA SUPER 199)
Superior Court 912 MDA 2004 decided May 27, 2005
"Sentencing"
This case gives a good review of when a court abuses its discretion in sentencing.
Click here to read more on the case.
ROMPILLA V BEARD SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
No. 04-5462
United States Supreme Court decided June 20, 2005
"Death Penalty/Reasonable efforts on the part of the attorney"
This case is a must read to determine the level and extent defense counsel must go in investigating mitigating
evidence for the death penalty phase.
Click here to read more on the case.
JOHNSON V CALIFORNIA, No. 04-6964
United States Supreme Court decided June 13, 2005
MILLER-EL DRETKE, DEPARTMENT OF TEXAS CORRECTIONS
United States Supreme Court decided June 13, 2005
"Batson"
Both of these cases deal with Batson Challenges-these are a must read to determine what factors the court
needs to review to determine if a Batson violation has occurred.
Click here to read more on the case.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v JEREMY MATTHEW MORRISON
Superior Court No. 1615 MDA 2003 decided June 17, 2005
"Guilty Plea"
This case gives a good review of what makes up a valid plea colloquy.
Click here to read more on the case.
DECK v MISSOURI
No. 04-5293 United State Supreme Court
Decided May 23, 2005
The defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder. During the penalty phase of his trial
he was shackled with leg irons and a belly chain. At the conclusion of the penalty phase he was sentenced to
death. On appeal the Missouri Supreme Court upheld his conviction. The United States Supreme Court reversed
his sentence and held the constitution forbids the use of visible shackles during a capital trial's guilt
phase, unless that use is "justified by an essential state interest" such as courtroom security-specific to
the defendant on trial.
COMMONWEALTH v EDIL G. ROSAS (JA46010/04 2005 PA SUPER 183)
LUIS S. BRITO (J.A46011/04 2005 PA SUPER 183)
Superior Court 1162 MDA 2004, 1163 MDA 2004 decided May 19, 2005
"Suppression"
Defendant Rosas was the driver and defendant Brito was the passenger in a car that was stopped for
speeding. The police officer approached the vehicle and asked the driver for his license, proof of insurance
and registration. He was unable to produce any of this information but gave the officer his birth date and
social security card. When the officer ran this information through N.C.I.C it cam back with an individual who
with a different name but the same birth date. Armed with this information the officer handcuffed Mr. Rosas and
informed him he was being detained because he was coming up as a deported felon from the N.C.I.C. report. While
things were being sorted out another officer who had arrived on the scene noticed an upside down license plate in
the car, (by this time Mr. Brito was outside of the car) he asked permission to get this plate. After he
received permission and in attempting to retrieve this plate he found cocaine in the car. Both men were arrested
and charged with attempt to deliver a controlled substance. Prior to trial a suppression motion was filed and
the trial court granted this motion based on the fact that when Mr. Rosas was handcuffed he was placed under
arrest and the information from the N.C.I.C. report did not give the officers probable cause to arrest. This
appeal followed. The Superior Court reversed the trial court based on the fact that when Mr. Rosas was
handcuffed he was not under arrest but was being detained for further investigation and as a result the level
of suspicion needed was not probable cause but rather reasonable suspicion and the information from the N.C.I.C.
gave the officer the reasonable suspicion to detain him for further inquiry.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v MALIK BROWN (J.A35028/04 2005 PA SUPER 180)
Superior Court 3243 EDA 2003 decided May 19, 2005
"Rule 600"
This case gives a good review of Rule 600 and the meaning of due diligence on the part of the
Commonwealth..
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v GREGORY DAVID LIDWIG (J-205-2004)
Supreme Court No. WAP 2002 decided May 19, 2005
"Constitutional challenge to statute 18 Pa.C.S. section 2506"
The defendant was arrested and charged with Drug Delivery resulting in death 18 Pa.C.S. section 2506 for
his involvement with the death of a customer of his. The defendant was a teenager who sold ecstasy pills to one
girl for herself and her two friends. When she purchased these pills he told her they were a double dose and to
only take half at a time. At the event all of the girls split the pills and took them. Later on that evening
one of the girls took the other half as a result of this she developed complications and subsequently died as a
result of the overdose. Prior to trial the trial court found this statute to be unconstitutional because it
failed to specifically state a mens rea necessary for conviction. The Supreme Court found the statute to be
constitutional because the legislature specifically designated this crime as murder in the third degree and the
mens rea for this crime is malice. However, the court went on to conclude the Commonwealth failed to establish
a prima facia case. The Court found the fact of supplying an illegal and potentially dangerous substance of
unknown quality does not if and of itself supports a finding of malice.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v WILLIAM BASMORE (J-S67005-04 2005 PA SUPER 184)
Superior Court 2722 EDA 2003 decided May 20, 2005
"Batson/Double Jeopardy"
If a Batson challenge is sustained on appeal double jeopardy is not implicated.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v LYNN E. KYLE (J-98-2004)
Supreme Court 255 MAP 2003 decided May 16, 2005
"Credit for time on electronic home monitoring"
The defendant was arrested and charged with various offenses during this time he was out on bail, after his
case was concluded he was allowed to remain on bail with electronic monitoring for the duration of his appeal.
In total he had spent 268 days on electronic home monitoring. The Supreme Court found that the defendant is not
entitled to credit. In reaching this decision they examine the Chiappini case and concluded on this issue a
fractured court decided the case and the case by case test proposed by Chiappini is specifically disapproved.
Credit could be given on equitable factors. Such as the ones found in Chiappini and Kriston.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v RAZZAAQ MILLER (J.S21031/05 2005 PA SUPER 177)
Superior Court 2403 EDA 2004 decided May 16, 2005
"Suppression/ Reasonable Suspicion"
Reasonable suspicion exists if a police officer observes an individual in a high crime area in conjunction
with unprovoked flight upon seeing the officer.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v ANTHONY S. TWITTY (J.A13008-05 2005 PA SUPER 193)
Superior Court 3301 EDA 2003 decided May 25, 2005
"Evidence"
The defendant was arrested and charged with various sexual offenses concerning his daughter. As part of
their case in chief the Commonwealth presented testimony from the forensic laboratory manager to testify to the
contents of two laboratory reports concerning the results of the DNA test. On appeal the defendant raised the
issue that this evidence should not have been admitted because it was hearsay. The Superior Court concluded that
the report was hearsay and should not have been admitted with out the technician who prepared the report
testifying at trial, however they then went to determine it was harmless error and affirmed the conviction.
href="http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a13008_05.pdf"
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWELATH v THOMAS D. LEE (J.A40029/04 2005 PA SUPER 160)
Superior Court No. 681 WDA 2004 decided April, 27, 2005
"Sentencing"
The defendant pled guilty to various sexual offenses. He was sentenced to a term of 15 months to 96
months incarceration. At the sentencing hearing the defendant wanted to introduce evidence regarding parole
policies implemented by the Pennsylvania State Board of Probation and Parole, the trial court found this
evidence to be irrelevant to the proceedings and denied this request. On appeal the defendant complains the
sentence was excessively harsh and the evidence concerning the parole board procedures should have been allowed
into evidence.
On appeal the court found because the minimum sentence was within the statutory guidelines the court was
not excessive in its decision and because the court does not know what the parole board will do in this case
the information about the policy and procedures are irrelevant at a sentencing hearing. The important part
of this case is the dissent. This should be read.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWELATH v MARCUS JOHNSON (J.S14001-05 2005 PA SUPER 159)
Superior Court No. 2282 EDA 2002 decided April 27, 2005
"Sentencing"
The defendant was charged with numerous counts of robbery and criminal conspiracy. The defendant was
scheduled to plead guilty, but when he went to the hearing he informed the court he had no intention of
pleading guilty and wanted a trial. At the sentencing judge told him this was the best deal he ever saw for
these charges and he really should take the deal. He also told him he was lucky to have such a good D.A. and
he did not understand why he was quibbling over two years. Throughout the hearing the judge took an active part
in the negotiations and finally persuaded the defendant to take the deal. On appeal the Superior Court vacated
the sentenced and allowed the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea because the judge crossed the line by being
actively involved in the plea.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v KENNETH JAMES HILL (A31025/04 2005 PA SUPER 156)
Superior Court 525 WDA 2004 decided April 26, 2005
"Suppression/Car Stop"
At approximately 1:00 a.m. the officers were on routine patrol when they noticed the defendant at this
time he was not observed committing any traffic violations. They were following his car closely, when the
defendant saw this he pulled over the side of the road to let them pass (he was not aware they were police
officers) at this time the officers pulled him behind him and activated their lights. The defendant was
subsequently arrested for DUI. Prior to the case the defense filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence, the trial
court granted this motion and the Commonwealth appealed. On Appeal the Commonwealth claimed (1) the initial
encounter with the defendant was not a seizure (2) the police were just trying to see if he needed assistance.
The Superior Court found the initial encounter was a seizure because once the officer activated his lights the
defendant was not free to leave. At no time was there an indication the defendant needed any type of
assistance all he did was pull over to allow the car behind him to pass. The police lacked reasonable suspicion
to stop and question the defendant and the suppression was affirmed.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v WAYNE EDWARDS (J.A02012/05 2005 PA SUPER 153)
Superior Court 773 MDA 2004 decided April 26, 2005
"Search/Probationer"
While the defendant was on parole his probation officer received two reports from an confidential
informant which reliability was never confirmed that the defendant was not residing at his approved address
and was selling drugs. Based on this information the probation officer went to the new address and found the
appellant outside. He questioned him and was told by the defendant that he was just letting the contractor
into the home to do some work. This explanation did not satisfy the probation officer, while he was talking to
the defendant he saw a pager in the door way. After seeing this he entered the home and did a search, the
defendant was arrested for various drug offenses. Prior to trial the defendant filed a Motion to Suppress, which
the trial court granted. The Commonwealth appealed to the Superior Court. On appeal the Superior Court affirmed
the suppression of evidence based on the following reasons. (it should be noted the court did not address the
issue of the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy in the residence because the Commonwealth waived this
issue on appeal) The Commonwealth never proved the informant was reliable because of this the probation officer
did not posses reasonable suspicion but merely suspicion. The ownership of the pager was never established and
could not be attributed to the defendant. While a parolee gives up certain rights he does not give up the rights
of others. The Commonwealth never proved he was living at the address and the parole officer lacked probable
cause to search this house.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v MICHAEL HENRY (J.S62017-04 2005 PA SUPER 149)
Superior Court EDA 2003 decided April 25, 2005
"Sufficiency of the evidence"
The defendant was arrested for theft and various charges related to a stolen automobile. The only
evidence presented at trial was his fingerprint was found on the inside of the car. He was found guilty of
unauthorized use of an automobile The Superior Court reversed his conviction because they found the Commonwealth
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant operated the vehicle. The fingerprint evidence only
proved the defendant was in the car at some point but not that he operated the vehicle as an element under the
authorized use statute.
Click here to read more on the case.
COMMONWEALTH v BARNSWELL JONES (S66025/04 2005 PA SUPER 150
Superior Court MDA 2004 decided April 25, 2005
"Expectation of Privacy"
The police stopped the defendant while he was driving a rented automobile where he was not on the lease
for the car. While they were stopped the defendant and the passenger all gave inconsistent statements about
where they were going and where they had been. After the initial detention was over the police told the
defendant he was free to leave. Before they left he asked if he could search the car, the defendant said no but
would consent to a dog sniff. During this encounter the defendant was acting nervously and seemed to be stalling
the police. The police brought the dog to the scene and was alerted to the possibility of drugs in the car. The
defendant was arrested for various drug offenses. Prior to trial he filed a Motion to Suppress. The trial court
denied the motion and the defendant was convicted. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence because
(1) the defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in a rented car where he was not on the lease. (2) the
encounter after he was told he was free to leave was a mere encounter (3) the inconsistent statements coupled
with the nervous behavior on the part of the defendant gave the officer reasonable suspicion that criminal
activity was afoot.
Click here to read more on the case.
|
|
|
Contents CopyrightŠ
2002 DCACDL
Use of this web site is subject to the
Terms of Use
|
|
