Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellee-Defendant Jose Luis Olivo was arrested in 2012, and charged with two counts of rape and involuntary deviant sexual intercourse and one count each of indecent assault, indecent exposure, endangering the welfare of children, and corruption of minors. The charges arose from allegations that he sexually abused his paramour’s daughter, starting in January 2009 when the victim was four and continuing until February 2012, when she was seven. Four days prior to the scheduled start of trial, Olivo presented a motion in limine to prevent the Commonwealth from presenting expert testimony pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. 5920 regarding child victim responses to sexual violence. Section 5920 applied to Olivo’s September 2012 criminal complaint because the Legislature made it effective for prosecutions filed on or after August 28, 2012. The court continued the trial to allow the presentation of argument regarding the motion in limine. The trial court suspended as unconstitutional Section 5920, concluding that the statute violated the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s exclusive control over judicial procedures pursuant to Article V, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that Section 5920 did not violate its authority under the Pennsylvania Constitution, and reversed the trial court’s decision suspending it. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Olivo" on Justia Law

While arguing with his wife, appellant struck her, knocked her to the ground, and attempted to force her back into their home; she escaped and drove to the police station. Police charged appellant with harassment and simple assault. While in prison awaiting his preliminary hearing, appellant tried to call his wife multiple times; she did not answer because the calls upset her. On time, appellant called his father, who called appellant’s wife on a separate phone and relayed appellant’s statements to her, establishing a three-way call on the two phones. Appellant insisted his wife tell the magistrate she would not testify, that she made a mistake, and that she caused her own injuries. If she failed to do so, appellant stated he would go to jail for two years, starve, and lose everything. He also told her that she must comply for the sake of their marriage, which he repeatedly described as “priceless.” Appellant stated that if his wife was charged with making false statements, he would pay her fines. Two days later, she told police she no longer wished to press charges. In light of the phone call, the Commonwealth charged appellant with intimidation of a witness under 18 Pa.C.S. 4952. A jury convicted appellant of simple assault and intimidation of a witness, and the trial court convicted him of harassment. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 33 to 66 months imprisonment. Appellant appealed the Superior Court order affirming his conviction, requesting that the Supreme Court overrule or clarify “Commonwealth v. Brachbill,” (555 A.2d 82 (Pa. 1989)). “‘Brachbill’ did not abolish the Commonwealth’s need to prove intimidation. Whether an offer of a pecuniary or other benefit contains sufficient indicia of intimidation is to be determined by the fact finder and assessed under the totality of the circumstances, cognizant that proof of manifest threats is not required. Insofar as Brachbill is read to mean pecuniary inducement alone will suffice without proof of intimidation, it is disapproved. While understandable, to the extent the Superior Court relied on ‘Brachbill’ to find intimidation is not needed to satisfy a conviction under 18 Pa.C.S. 4952,” the Supreme Court held the court erred. Despite clarifying Brachbill, the Court did not remand to the Superior Court to review the sufficiency of the evidence; as “the jury was properly instructed and found intimidation, additional fact finding is unnecessary.” View "Pennsylvania v. Doughty" on Justia Law

An equally divided en banc panel of the Superior Court resulted in affirmance of appellant Jacob Christine's judgment of sentence for aggravated assault, and recklessly endangering another person. Appellant was alleged to have slashed a fellow inmate's throat. Corrections officer searched appellant's cell and found a shank. Appellant filed a motion in limine to exclude the shank from evidence, arguing it was irrelevant and would cause undue prejudice by confusing the jury, because the Commonwealth agreed the shank was not used in the attack. The trial court ruled the shank admissible under multiple theories. The divided Superior Court held that the shank was properly admitted, but that the trial court erred in refusing to allow appellant to question the victim of the attack about his own conviction for simple assault. Appellant appealed admission of the shank. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pennsylvania v. Christine" on Justia Law

On April 6, 2011, Shaun Warrick appeared in the Philadelphia Municipal Court for his preliminary hearing on two homicide charges. Appellees were relatives of the victims, and were seated in the courtroom gallery. Before testimony began, Warrick advised the court his mother had retained private counsel for him and requested a continuance. At the court’s request, his mother, escorted by court officer Richard Brandt, came forward to testify. Appellees thereupon verbally and physically assailed Ms. Warrick, and a general melee erupted in the courtroom. Warrick tried to defend his mother, which led to an expanded struggle that required deputy sheriffs and police reinforcements from outside the courtroom to restore order. The courtroom was locked down for three hours. When court reconvened, the trial court did make an “initial finding” of direct criminal contempt but deferred “final determination as to what the sentence should be” until appellees could meet with counsel. Appellees returned to court and sought to present their own witnesses and cross-examine other witnesses. The court denied the requests, finding that appellees were not entitled to call or cross-examine witnesses, particularly as the contemptuous acts took place “in the presence of the [c]ourt.” Appellees appealed, and the three cases were consolidated. Because the Superior Court erroneously determined the summary-contempt proceedings were improper, it also erred in concluding appellees “should have been permitted to cross-examine the court crier, and to present their own witnesses, in an adversary hearing with full due process protections.” The Supreme Court found the trial court appropriately conducted summary proceedings and appellees were sufficiently represented by counsel prior to sentencing. View "Pennsylvania v. Moody" on Justia Law

On January 13, 2015, as his term was ending, out-going Governor Tom Corbett appointed appellee Erik Arneson as the Executive Director of the Office of Open Records (OOR) for a term of six years, with an optional reappointment for an additional six years. On January 20, 2015, the first day of Governor Wolf’s term, he terminated Appellee’s employment. Appellee filed a complaint for mandamus and declaratory relief in the Commonwealth Court, arguing that Governor Wolf’s termination of his employment violated the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Right to Know Law (RTKL). The Commonwealth Court accepted this argument and reinstated Appellee. The Governor appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after review, adopted and supplemented the Commonwealth Court’s opinion, and affirmed. View "Arneson v. Wolf" on Justia Law

The issue the Supreme Court addressed in these consolidated appeals centered on the extent of the public’s statutory right of access to discrete information about the implementation of the Medical Assistance Program. In 2011, James Eiseman, Jr. and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia (“Requesters”) tendered requests to the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) seeking records revealing, among other things, the rates that DPW paid to managed care organizations (MCOs) for dental services in the Southeast Zone (the “Capitation Rates”), and the amounts paid by MCOs to provide dental services (the “MCO Rates”). These were submitted per the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL). DPW denied the requests. Pertinent to the Supreme Court’s review of this case, with regard to the MCO Rates, the Department indicated that it had been informed by each of the MCOs that the rates were “trade secrets and/or confidential proprietary information” protected against disclosure. The Department did not deny that it possessed pertinent records; rather, it related that the MCOs had instructed that “DPW is not to disclose” the rates. The Office of Open Records (OOR), however, issued a final determination granting the relevant records requests. Initially, an appeals officer observed that records in the possession of a Commonwealth agency were presumed to be public, unless they qualified for an exemption under the RTKL or other law or are protected by a privilege, judicial order, or decree. In a divided opinion, the Commonwealth Court sustained the portion of the OOR’s determination concerning Capitation Rates, as the members of an en banc panel unanimously agreed that contracts between DPW and the MCOs were financial records under the Law. In the absence of a legislative evaluation, the Supreme Court could not conclude that records which must be submitted to a government agency for approval, were not records “dealing with” the agency’s monetary disbursements and services acquisitions. "[I]f the General Assembly wished for dissemination to be withheld, it would have been a straightforward matter to provide for redaction of trade-secrets information in Section 708(c) of the Law, as was done in relation to eight of the other openness exceptions which are otherwise withheld from financial records." The Court focused upon the conclusion that records which were required to be submitted to and approved by DPW, and which reflected the central means of implementing a core departmental function, were records “dealing with” DPW’s disbursement of public monies and its responsibility to afford access to healthcare services in furtherance of the public interest. The order of the Commonwealth Court holding to the contrary was reversed relative to the MCO Rates, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Dept. of Public Welfare v. Eiseman" on Justia Law

A jury convicted appellant George Hitcho, Jr. of first degree murder for the death of Freemansburg Police Officer Robert Lasso in 2011. At the penalty phase, the jury found one aggravating circumstance and three mitigating circumstances, unanimously determined the aggravating circumstance outweighed the mitigating circumstances, and sentenced appellant to death. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found "no basis upon which to upset the death verdict," and affirmed appellant's conviction and sentence. View "Pennsylvania v. Hitcho" on Justia Law

In 2007, Terra Technical Services, LLC subcontracted with River Station Development which in turn entered into a written contract with River Station Land, L.P., the terms of which provided that Terra Technical would perform demolition and debris removal of structures of various types and sizes on a seventy-six acre parcel of land owned by River Station for an agreed upon amount. In 2009, Terra Technical provided formal notice to River Station of its intention to file a mechanics’ lien claim pursuant to 49 P.S. 1501.In 2010, Terra Technical filed seventeen identical mechanics lien against River Station's designated parcels of land, including the buildings and structures thereon, wherein it alleged it had begun the demolition work on the property on July 31, 2007, and completed its contractual duties on December 23, 2008, although it did not receive the full amount of the agreed upon price for its services. Although River Station filed preliminary objections to Terra Technical’s mechanics’ lien claims on January 5, 2011, and Terra Technical filed responses thereto on January 25, 2011, the trial court did not issue a ruling thereon in light of the failure of either party to take the action necessary to bring the preliminary objections before the trial court. In 2012, Terra Technical filed seventeen complaints to obtain judgment on the corresponding mechanics’ lien claims. In this appeal the question this case raised for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether the Mechanics’ Lien Law required a claimant filing a complaint to enforce a previously filed mechanics’ lien claim to docket such complaint under a term and number separate from that which had been assigned to the mechanics’ lien claim itself. The Supreme Court held that it did not, and accordingly, reversed. View "Terra Technical Services v. River Station Land, L.P." on Justia Law

On the night of March 9, 2001, appellant Stephen Treiber set fire to his home while his girlfriend, Denise Riddle, and his two-year-old daughter, Jessica, slept inside. As the home burned, appellant and Riddle escaped, but Jessica remained in her crib until firefighters removed her; however, they were unable to revive her. Appellant was charged with criminal homicide, reckless endangerment, and multiple counts of arson. Appellant appealed the denial of collateral relief to his criminal convictions and death sentence pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Upon careful consideration of appellant's arguments on appeal and the trial court record, the Supreme Court held that the PCRA court's conclusions were "free from legal error" and supported by the record. Therefore, appellant was not entitled to relief. View "Pennsylvania v. Treiber" on Justia Law

Appellant Collette Brown, a resident of Concord Township, Delaware County, appealed the Commonwealth Court's order affirming the trial court's dismissal of her petition to place on the November 2014 ballot, a referendum question seeking to change the Township's governmental status from second-class to first-class. Appellant's petition contained 994 signatures (8.5%) out of the Township’s 11,640 registered voters and claimed that as of the 2010 census, the Township had a population density of around 1,258 inhabitants per square mile (“IPSM”). As stated, both figures easily exceeded the statutory thresholds of 300 IPSM and 5% registered voter signatures, which Appellant believed operated as conjunctive preconditions. Seven named qualified electors (“Appellees”) filed objections and claimed the petition was substantively and procedurally defective under Pennsylvania law, which they argued was time-limited to the first municipal or general election occurring at least ninety days after the 2010 census. That same day, the Delaware County Bureau of Elections intervened and requested declaratory relief, claiming that in addition to not satisfying the statutory requirements, the petition should have been dismissed because a home rule study referendum question was already on the ballot (which voters later approved), and that if Appellant’s referendum question were successful, the subsequent change in Township government could violate the Pennsylvania Constitution. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that pursuant to 53 P.S. section 55207, second- to first-class township referendum questions shall be submitted to voters at the first general or municipal election occurring at least ninety days after fulfilling both the population density ascertainment and petition signature filing requirements as set forth in the statute. Accordingly, the Court reversed the order of the Commonwealth Court and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "In re: Ballot Quest to Concord Twp" on Justia Law