Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Michelle Sue Tharp was convicted of first degree murder and related offenses after she deliberately starved her seven-year-old daughter to death. After her judgment of sentence was affirmed on appeal, Appellant filed a petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). Following several evidentiary hearings, the Court of Common Pleas (PCRA court) dismissed Appellant’s petition. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the PCRA court’s denial of relief on Appellant’s guilt phase claims, and reversed on the PCRA court’s denial of relief on the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present mental health mitigation evidence during the penalty phase of trial. Accordingly, the case was remanded for a new penalty hearing. View "Pennsylvania v. Tharp" on Justia Law

This case was a direct appeal of a death sentence imposed after a jury convicted Appellant Jeffrey Martin of one count of first-degree murder and other charges arising from the strangulation death of a twelve-year-old girl. The jury concluded, with respect to the circumstances of the murder, that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating circumstances, and imposed the death sentence. The primary issues raised by Appellant on appeal centered on whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdicts for the additional charges of rape, sexual assault, and statutory sexual assault. Appellant argued that because there was insufficient evidence to prove that the killings had been committed during the perpetration of these felonies, the jury considered non-existing aggravating circumstances when it imposed the sentence of death. Appellant also challenged the ruling of the suppression court that allowed certain evidence to be presented against him at trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pennsylvania v. Martin" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal was whether certain property in Cumberland County, which was owned by the City of Philadelphia as trustee of the Stephen Girard Trust and leased by the Board of Directors of City Trusts to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, was subject to local real estate taxation in Cumberland County. The trial court held that the property was both immune and exempt from local real estate taxation. The Commonwealth Court reversed. After its review, the Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court and reinstated the trial court’s order on grounds of tax immunity. View "City of Philadelphia v. Cumberland Cty Brd Assess Appeals" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether the Superior Court erred in reversing a trial court’s bail forfeiture order. In 2010, police arrested Ricky Hann for assaulting his then-girlfriend. Following an initial bail hearing, he was released on his own recognizance. The girlfriend obtained a protection-from-abuse order contemporaneous with Hann’s release. A month later, police arrested Hann for violating the PA order. He was found guilty, but remained free. A few months later, the girlfriend reported to police that she had been kidnapped and kept against her will for about 24 hours before she could escape. Based on this statement, police arrested Hann. Hann was arraigned, and bail set. Hann executed a surety agreement with a bail bondsman whereby he acknowledged his heirs or assigns could be responsible for forfeiting the bail should Hann fail to appear for court proceedings. Hann was again released on bail. Police were dispatched to the girlfriend’s residence; upon arrival, officers found the dead bodies of Hann and the girlfriend, both shot in a homicide/suicide. The Commonwealth filed a petition for bail forfeiture, contending that by murdering his girlfriend and killing himself, Hann violated the terms of his bail bond, and that the bail bondsman was subject to forfeiture of the bail. The bail bondsman opposed the petition, arguing that “justice did not require the full enforcement” of the order. The Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court’s order: “[w]e do not portend to render bail bondsmen, or any surety for that matter, the guarantors of a defendant’s conduct while the defendant is released on bail. However, the express language of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure concerning bail, bail bonds, and forfeiture . . . permit forfeiture for any breach of a bail condition. Were we to accept the Superior Court’s holding, however, that ‘justice only require[d]’ forfeiture in circumstances where the Commonwealth has expended money in recapturing or retrying the defendant, the rule-based requirements of non-absconding related conditions and the potential for forfeiture for breaching those conditions would become nullities. To the extent the Superior Court so held, we respectfully find that it erred.” View "Pennsylvania v. Hann (Weachter-Bail Bondsman)" on Justia Law

In 1999, Appellant, his codefendant, and two accomplices robbed the occupants of a vehicle at gunpoint. In the course of the robbery, Appellant shot and killed the victim. At the time, Appellant was seventeen years of age. In 2002, Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and related offenses. He received a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, plus a term of imprisonment. On direct appeal, the Superior Court affirmed; the Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal; and Appellant did not seek discretionary review in the United States Supreme Court. Appellant then timely filed a post-conviction petition claiming, inter alia, that the life-without-parole sentence violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as extended to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the issue before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in this case was whether “Miller v. Alabama,” (132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)) applied retroactively to Appellant’s 2002 judgment of sentence, which became final in 2005. The United States Supreme Court issued the Miller decision in June 2012, rendering Pennsylvania’s mandatory scheme of life imprisonment for first- and second-degree murder unconstitutional, as applied to offenders under the age of eighteen at the time of their crimes. Significantly, as pertaining to this case, the Miller majority did not specifically address the question of whether its holding applied to judgments of sentence for prisoners, such as Appellant, which already were final as of the time of the decision. The Pennsylvania Court applied settled principles of appellate review, and found nothing in Appellant’s arguments persuaded it that Miller’s proscription of the imposition of mandatory life-without-parole sentences upon offenders under the age of eighteen at the time their crimes were committed must be extended to those whose judgments of sentence were final as of the time of Miller’s announcement. View "Pennsylvania v. Cunningham" on Justia Law

Appellant was found guilty of sexual abuse of children, invasion of privacy, and criminal use of a communications facility for videotaping his 13-year-old step-daughter undressing in the bathroom. Although appellant admitted to the videotaping, he contended his motivation was to embarrass her and correct her behavior for having twice entered his bedroom while he was naked. The trial court did not credit appellant’s testimony concerning his motivation and found him guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to a probationary term of three and one-half years and ordered to undergo a sex offender evaluation and follow all treatment recommendations as a specific condition of his probation. One such recommendation was a sex offender treatment program. Appellant would later be discharged from the program. Concluding appellant’s discharge from the program was a violation of his probation conditions, appellant’s probation officer filed a petition with the trial court; the trial court found appellant violated his probation requirements, and it revoked his probation. Appellant was sentenced to another probationary term of three years and ordered to complete the sex offender program, including polygraph examinations administered to monitor his compliance. Appellant appealed to the Superior Court, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion he violated his probation, and that the trial court erred in admitting the results of his therapeutic polygraph examination into evidence at his VOP hearing. The Supreme Court found no error in the trial or Superior Courts’ decisions, and affirmed. View "Pennsylvania v. A.R. " on Justia Law

Appellant George Yohe, II, appealed a Superior Court order that reversed the trial court’s order awarding a new trial on the ground that his constitutional right of confrontation was violated. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court that appellant’s constitutional right of confrontation was not violated at trial because the testifying witness was not a “surrogate witness,” as Appellant argued. Rather, the witness was the author of the testimonial statement offered into evidence and, therefore, was an appropriate witness under the Confrontation Clause. Accordingly, Appellant’s confrontation rights were protected by this testimony. View "Pennsylvania v. Yohe, II" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal to determine whether: (1) the repeal of an ordinance mooted any challenges to that ordinance; (2) whether the Commonwealth Court may issue an opinion on the merits of certain issues where it subsequently remands the case for a determination of mootness on another issue; and (3) whether parties to a hearing can continue a challenge to a zoning ordinance once the original challenger has withdrawn. Because “parties to a hearing” are distinct from “party appellants,” unless the former have taken steps to become party appellants, the Supreme Court found they cannot continue the challenge. Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court’s decision permitting parties to the hearing to continue the challenge brought by the original party appellant was reversed, and the attempted challenge was dismissed. View "Stuckley v. ZHB of Newtown Twp." on Justia Law

The Superior Court reversed a Court of Common Pleas order, which granted appellant's motion to dismiss. In 2006, police conducted a controlled cocaine buy from appellant using a confidential informant. Appellant and the informant met at a convenience store then drove to a bar parking lot. The informant then dropped appellant off at a nearby plaza and later gave police the cocaine he purchased. Appellant was not then arrested. In 2007, appellant was kidnapped and robbed. At the interview about the incident, Detective Charles Shoemaker (one of the officers who assisted in the 2006 controlled buy), informed appellant he was under investigation in connection with the 2006 incident. Appellant confessed he was in the business of selling cocaine. Appellant was arrested and charged with possession with intent to deliver (PWID) in connection with the 2006 sale; he later pled guilty to that charge. In a separate investigation, a state grand jury began investigating drug distribution activities in the area of the 2006 incident, targeting certain individuals, including appellant. In its 2009 presentment, the grand jury implicated appellant as one of the organization's distributors. Specifically, the grand jury found that between 2006 and 2007, appellant sold cocaine at his home and various bars. The presentment did not mention the 2007 case, or any controlled buys involving appellant. Appellant filed an omnibus pre-trial motion to dismiss the 2010 case pursuant to the compulsory joinder rule, claiming the 2010 case arose from the same criminal episode as the 2007 case. The trial court granted the motion, and the Commonwealth appealed. A panel of the Superior Court reversed and remanded, instructing the trial court to reinstate the 2010 charges. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded there was no substantial duplication of issues of fact or law; thus, the two prosecutions did not arise from the same criminal episode. View "Pennsylvania v. Reid" on Justia Law

In a direct appeal, the issue before the Supreme Court in this case was the constitutionality of legislation mandating a one-time transfer of money from the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund to Pennsylvania's General Fund. The Commonwealth faced a budget impasse for the 2009-10 fiscal year that lasted approximately 100 days. An interim budget was passed, and impasse was resolved when the Governor approved a supplemental appropriations bill, as well as implementing legislation making amendments to Pennsylvania's Fiscal Code. One of Act provisions designed to balance the budget directed that $100 million be transferred from the MCARE Fund to the General Fund. Appellees sought a declaration that: (1) the transfer of $100 million from the MCARE Fund to the General Fund extinguished vested rights or constituted an illegal taking in violation of the due process guarantees contained the Commonwealth and federal constitutions; and (2) the transfer violated the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Concerned that the Commonwealth might effectuate the transfer and dissipate the funds, Appellees filed an application for preliminary injunctive relief (a temporary restraining order). After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the October 2009 amendment to the Fiscal Code transferring $100 million from the MCARE Fund to the General Fund implicated the providers' due process rights, but that the question of whether the legislation was finally unconstitutional requires further factual development. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's order granting summary relief. View "Geisinger Health System, et al v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law