Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellees Henry Daniels and Kevin Pelzer participated in a plan to kidnap and hold for ransom sixteen-year-old Alexander Porter. Appellees kidnapped the victim, bound and gagged him, and placed him in the trunk of his car. Ultimately, they determined to kill the victim. In all, the victim was held in the trunk for twenty-four hours. According to appellees' police statements and Daniels's trial testimony, appellees were unable to determine whether the youth was dead when they went to dispose of his body. Pelzer shot Porter four times in the back of the neck to remove all doubt. The jury found both appellees guilty of first-degree murder and other offenses. These cross-appeals were a continuation of their first collateral challenges to their convictions under the Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the PCRA court's March 25, 2003 order, which had granted appellees a new trial. The Court reviewed three claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness, denied relief on all three claims, and remanded the case to the PCRA court for the preparation of an opinion addressing the remainder of appellees' claims. On remand, the PCRA judge retired, a new judge ordered a new penalty proceeding for each appellee, while denying guilt phase relief. The Commonwealth appealed that order, while appellees, in separate cross-appeals, sought review of additional issues upon which the PCRA court denied relief. Upon careful consideration of the record below, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the PCRA court as it related to Kevin Pelzer, but reversed the order as it related to Henry Daniels. Thus, Pelzer was denied guilt phase relief, but the award of a new penalty phase hearing to him was affirmed, and Daniels's PCRA petition was dismissed in its entirety. View "Pennsylvania v. Daniels" on Justia Law

In an appeal by allowance, the issue before the Supreme court was whether a conviction for possession of an instrument of crime ("PIC") could be sustained when a defendant has been otherwise acquitted of related offenses involving the use of that instrument of crime, here, a firearm. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court held that a defendant's conviction of PIC may stand under such circumstances. The Court vacated the Superior Court's order reversing Appellee James Moore's PIC conviction, and remanded to the trial court for reinstatement of Appellee's judgment of sentence. View "Pennsylvania v. Moore" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review centered on the viability of the historic police power of the state in validating and regulating riparian rights and remedies where it was alleged that a downstream landowner subject to federal rail-safety regulations obstructed a natural watercourse causing upstream flooding and significant damage as a result. Hotel owner David Miller and his hotel (appellants) sought to hold the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA") liable for water damage allegedly resulting from the negligent construction and/or maintenance of a nearby SEPTA-owned railroad bridge. Appellants purchased hotel property in 1996, and they claimed that the bridge thereafter obstructed the flow of a creek which ran under the bridge, causing the creek to flood appellants' upstream hotel on three separate occasions of extreme weather conditions. On each occasion, appellants experienced flooding that filled the hotel basement and first floor. In 2001, the hotel closed and appellants declared bankruptcy. "As this is an area of law that has been regulated by the Commonwealth for centuries," the Pennsylvania Court concluded that there was no clear and manifest federal congressional intention to preempt Pennsylvania law central issue of this case. The Court declined to "invalidate the rights and remedies afforded to appellants under the laws of this Commonwealth." The Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's order and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Miller v. SEPTA" on Justia Law

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of this case for improper venue. A criminal complaint was filed in Monroe County charging appellant with criminal conspiracy, firearms not to be carried without a license, possession of firearm prohibited, and lending or giving of firearms prohibited. Venue was held improper based on a lack of factual connection to Monroe County. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded this was error. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Gross" on Justia Law

In an appeal by allowance, the issue this case presented to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was whether first-degree burglary constituted “violent behavior” pursuant to the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Act (“RRRI Act”). The Court concluded that first-degree burglary is “violent behavior” as contemplated by the RRRI Act. Thus, the Court affirmed the decision of the Superior Court upholding Appellant Matthew Chester's sentence. View "Pennsylvania v. Chester" on Justia Law

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