Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Friends of Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School appealed an order of the Commonwealth Court which held that the retroactive real estate tax exemption provided in Section 1722-A(e)(3) of the Public School Code, 24 P.S. 17-1722-A(e)(3), was unconstitutional. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed (though by different reasoning), concluding that retroactive application of the real estate tax exemption of Section 1722-A(e)(3) was unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it violated the separation of powers doctrine. View "Friends of PaLCS v. Chester Cty Bd of Assess" on Justia Law

In 2009, the Newtown Township Board of Supervisors enacted a Planned Residential Development Ordinance. This appeal centered on challenges to the validity of that ordinance and to the approval of a Tentative PRD Plan pursuant to it. Intervenors BPG Real Estate Investors (BPG) submitted an application under the anticipated PRD Ordinance for approval of a Tentative PRD Plan, proposing multi-use development of an approximately 218-acre tract of land that it owned. The Township Board orally approved BPG's Tentative PRD Plan, and later issued a written decision granting approval. Newtown Square East, L.P. (NSE), which owned a two-acre tract of land adjacent to BPG's tract, filed a challenge to the validity of the PRD Ordinance with the Newtown Township Zoning Hearing Board, and filed an appeal of the Township Board's approval of BPG's Tentative PRD Plan with the court of common pleas. With regard to its validity challenge before the Zoning Board, NSE argued, inter alia, that the PRD Ordinance violated Article VII of the MPC by, allegedly, failing to require that a tentative plan identify the uses of buildings and other structures, and permitting the location of buildings to be subject to free modification between the time of tentative plan approval and final plan approval. Following several hearings, the Zoning Board upheld the validity of the PRD Ordinance, finding that its minor textual variations from the relevant provisions of the MPC, Article VII, did not create an inconsistency or conflict with the enabling legislation. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the ordinance. View "Newtown Square East v. Twp. of Newtown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted review in this case principally to clarify the standard for determining whether a municipal ordinance applied to an agency or instrumentality of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Court concluded here that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) was not subject to either the provisions of the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance (FPO), or the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations. The Commonwealth Court also concluded that, because SEPTA was not subject to the Philadelphia Commission’s jurisdiction, it had no duty to exhaust its administrative remedies before that agency. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated the Commonwealth Court order and remanded for reconsideration under the proper standard. View "SEPTA v. City of Phila., et al" on Justia Law

The primary question this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether a municipal authority could exercise its eminent domain powers to condemn an easement over privately-owned land, where the sole purpose of the easement is to supply a private developer with land to install sewer drainage facilities needed for a proposed private residential subdivision. "While this determination may seem to interfere with the ability of municipal water and/or sewer authorities to expand their operations under circumstances where, as here, there is an overarching nexus between the taking and private development, it is not this Court’s function to ameliorate such difficulties by departing from the statutory text. [. . .] The Legislature’s decision to exempt regulated public utilities, but not municipal authorities, from the preclusive rule set forth in Section 204(a) demonstrates that it intended to allow – within constitutional limitations – the continued use of eminent domain for the provision of public services such as water and sewer access in tandem with private development for a limited, defined class of condemnors. As RAWA is not within that class, its condemnation of the drainage easement is in violation of PRPA." View "Reading Area Wat Auth v. Schuyl River Grwy, et al" on Justia Law

Appellant Jakeem Towles and Antwain Robinson took a bus from Lancaster to Columbia to visit appellant's cousin, Tyrone Hunter, and to attend a local rap performance at a venue near Hunter's apartment. Appellant and Robinson drank alcohol and smoked marijuana over the course of the night, walking between Hunter’s apartment and the venue several times. At some point, appellant took Hunter’s handgun from his apartment and hid it in a nearby alley. At the venue, appellant interrupted Cornell Stewart and John Wright's rap performance by grabbing Wright's microphone. As a result, appellant and Wright got into a physical altercation wherein Wright hit appellant at least once. Security separated them, and escorted appellant and Robinson out the front door and Wright and Stewart out the back. Appellant immediately retrieved the handgun he hid earlier, went behind the venue, and fired three shots at Wright and Stewart. One of the shots fatally struck Stewart in the head. Appellant and Robinson fled the scene and asked a friend for a ride to Lancaster. During the trip, appellant made incriminating statements to all occupants of the vehicle, including Robinson, their friend, and two other women, and instructed them not to talk. Appellant was charged with Stewart’s homicide, the attempted homicide of Wright, and unlawful possession of a firearm (the unlawful possession charge was severed for trial). The Commonwealth filed notice of an aggravating circumstance and intent to seek the death penalty. At trial, appellant’s defense theory was to negate specific intent to kill by arguing he was in the heat of passion from the altercation with Wright and also had diminished capacity due to voluntary intoxication. The jury convicted appellant of first degree murder and attempted homicide. In the penalty phase, the jury found one aggravating circumstance: in the commission of the murder, appellant created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to Stewart. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court must affirm a death sentence unless it finds: (i) the evidence fails to support the finding of at least one aggravating circumstance; or (ii) the sentence was the product of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. Finding no reversible error, the Court affirmed appellant's death sentence. View "Pennsylvania v. Towles" on Justia Law

Appellant Anthony Reid was convicted by jury of first-degree murder, carrying a firearm without a license, possessing an instrument of crime, and criminal conspiracy stemming from the 1988 murder of Mark Lisby. Appellant was ultimately sentenced to death for the first-degree murder conviction, 2.5 to 5 years for possession of an instrument of crime, 2.5 to 5 years for carrying a firearm without a license, and 5 to 10 years for criminal conspiracy. Appellant filed for post-conviction relief, and was denied. He appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the PCRA court's denial of relief. View "Pennsylvania v. Reid" on Justia Law

In 1989, a group of boys was throwing snowballs at passing cars in a Philadelphia neighborhood. One of the snowballs struck a vehicle driven by Appellant Anthony Reid, who was also known as “Tone” or “Tone-Bey.” Appellant stopped his vehicle, and he and his two passengers exited the car. The boys scattered, and Appellant asked two bystanders if they were involved in throwing the snowballs. The bystanders denied involvement, and, as Appellant reached his hand inside his jacket, he replied “You better hope none was your family.” Appellant and his passengers drove around the block looking for the boys who had been throwing snowballs. When Appellant reached the stop sign, he drove the car onto the sidewalk and gunfire erupted from the passenger side of the vehicle. Michael Waters was fatally wounded. Six days later, in a separate incident, Appellant used a 10-millimeter handgun to kill Neal Wilkinson. In this incident, Appellant and a companion, Kevin Bowman, asked Wilkinson and Darryl Woods to accompany them to collect a debt. When Wilkinson and Woods ascended the stairs to the residence of the alleged debtor, Bowman shot them both with a shotgun, and Appellant then shot both men with a handgun. Woods survived and gave police a statement naming Appellant as one of the two shooters. Ten-millimeter shell casings found at the scene of the Wilkinson murder were determined to have been fired from the same gun that was used in the Waters murder six days earlier. The trial court formally imposed a death sentence on the murder conviction, and a consecutive aggregate sentence of 10-20 years imprisonment on remaining offenses. Appellant sought post-conviction relief, but was denied. Finding no reason to overturn the PCRA Court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pennsylvania v. Reid" on Justia Law

Following remand in this capital case, the Commonwealth appealed the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County's order granting Appellee Richard Hackett's petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). After determining that Appellee proved he was "mentally retarded" and thus, exempt from execution in accordance with the United States Supreme Court's decision in "Atkins v. Virginia," (536 U.S. 304 (2002)), the PCRA court set aside Appellee's death sentence. As the PCRA court made findings which were not supported by substantial evidence of record and made an error of law by improperly equating borderline intellectual functioning with mental retardation (intellectual disability), the Supreme Court reversed the PCRA court's order vacating Appellee's death sentence and dismissed his petition for collateral relief. View "Pennsylvania v. Hackett" on Justia Law

Wes and Cynthia Collier lived in a home in Scranton, Pennsylvania with their children and step-children: 16-year-old Leslie Collier; 19-year-old Samantha Hintz; 22-year-old Dustin Hintz; and 22-year-old Matthew Collier, who was handicapped and could not walk. Appellee, then 25-years-old, moved into the Collier home. At the time, he and Samantha were boyfriend and girlfriend, and they lived in her bedroom. Between May and June 2008, Samantha and Appellee were no longer getting along, so Appellee was given his own bedroom in the basement. Appellee became angry when he found Justin Berrios, age 22, Samantha’s former boyfriend and the father of her 2-year-old child Tristan, sitting on Samantha’s bed with her. After working their shifts, Samantha gave Appellee a ride home. Appellee left for a friend’s house, and Cynthia retired for the evening at 11:00 p.m. In the early hours of July 17, 2008, Appellee returned to the Collier home and stabbed Justin to death. When police arrived at the house, they found Samantha, Cynthia and Matthew bound. Samantha had been assaulted; Justin, Leslie and Dustin were dead. Appellee was charged with three counts each of first-degree murder, second-degree murder and third-degree murder, robbery, indecent assault and kidnapping, and convicted by jury on all counts. A three-judge panel of the Superior Court, in relevant part, unanimously determined the facts were insufficient to sustain the kidnapping charge, and, as a result, the second-degree murder convictions. The Commonwealth appealed the Superior Court's judgment. Finding that the victims, although imprisoned in their home, nevertheless, were confined in a place of isolation, satisfied the Commonwealth’s definition of kidnapping. Thus, the Superior Court was reversed and the trial court's judgments of sentence reinstated. View "Pennsylvania v. Rushing" on Justia Law

A Pittsburgh police officer on foot patrol came upon Appellant Duane Jemison, Jr.'s car which was parked improperly in a legally marked handicapped parking spot. Upon running the car's license plate number, the officer discovered that the car had been carjacked a few days before. As other officers arrived at the scene, Appellant entered the car and started to drive away, but was immediately stopped by a police vehicle in his path. The officers ordered Appellant to get out of the car. Rather than complying immediately, Appellant moved one of his hands downward toward the floorboard, where one of the officers then observed a gun. After a search, officers recovered a gun with the hammer back, the safety off, and a round in the chamber from the floor of the vehicle. Appellant was charged with persons not to possess a firearm, carrying a firearm without a license, resisting arrest, and two counts of receiving stolen property. He was tried by jury for persons not to possess a firearm, after this charge had been severed from the others. To establish Appellant's guilt of this charge, the Commonwealth was required to prove that Appellant had been previously convicted of a statutorily enumerated offense that barred him from possessing a firearm, and that he had, indeed, possessed a firearm. It was undisputed that, in 2008, Appellant had been convicted of robbery, and the Commonwealth sought to introduce at trial the evidence of this robbery conviction. However, Appellant sought to stipulate only that he had been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses, without stating that the specific offense was robbery. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was the continued viability of "Commonwealth v. Stanley," (446 A.2d 583 (Pa. 1982)), where the Court held that the prosecution was not required to accept a defendant's offer to stipulate to the fact of a prior conviction when the conviction was an element of the offense charged. Concluding that "Stanley" remained good law despite the United States Supreme Court's holding in "Old Chief v. United States," (519 U.S. 172 (1997)), the Pennsylvania Court affirmed the Superior Court's order affirming Appellant's sentence. View "Pennsylvania v. Jemison Jr." on Justia Law