Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the superior court in this matter erred in determining that police officers, when seeking consent to administer a blood test for the presence of drugs or alcohol following a traffic accident, must tell the person that the results of the test could be used for criminal or prosecutorial purposes. To the extent the court held that an officer must inform a person that a positive result in a blood test may have criminal repercussions, and such failure renders any consent to the blood test invalid, the court erred. The Supreme Court held that the totality of the circumstances presented in this case supported the trial court’s conclusion that the suppression of blood test results was not warranted. View "Pennsylvania v. Smith" on Justia Law

In a direct appeal, appellant Michael Parrish appealed two death sentences he received after a jury found him guilty for the shooting deaths of his girlfriend Victoria Adams and their 19-month-old son Sidney. Based upon its thorough review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence was fully sufficient to sustain both of Appellant’s first-degree murder convictions and death sentences: Appellant confessed to killing both Victoria and Sidney, and, on the night of the incident, Appellant was witnessed at the crime scene with a gun; multiple individuals heard gunshots coming from Appellant’s apartment; Appellant fired his gun at Adams, Ahern, and Ramos; and a .357 Glock semi-automatic handgun was recovered during Appellant’s arrest that matched the thirteen .357 shell casings found at the crime scene. View "Pennsylvania v. Parrish" on Justia Law

Appellee Pamela Vukman appealed a superior court order that affirmed the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. That order granted appellees motion to set aside judgment and sheriff's sale, and dismissed appellant Beneficial Consumer Discount Company's praecipe without prejudice. Beneficial moved to foreclose appellee for being in default of her mortgage. The parties agreed to a settlement whereby Beneficial received judgment for the accelerated amount due on the mortgage as long as appellee made regular payments. Appellee eventually defaulted according to the terms of the settlement; Beneficial filed for a writ of execution. The property was sold at a sheriff's sale, and Beneficial was the successful bidder. Appellee then moved to set aside the sale, arguing Beneficial failed to comply with the requirements under the Homeowner's Emergency Mortgage Act. The court concluded that Beneficial did not follow the Act's requirements, and as a result, it id not have jurisdiction. Therefore the court set aside the sale and dismissed Beneficial's original complaint. Beneficial appealed; the superior court affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Act's notice requirement did not implicate subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court, it reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Beneficial Consumer Discount Company v. Vukman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the admission of accuracy and calibration certificates for breath test machines without testimony from the individual who performed the testing and prepared the certificates violated appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Under the circumstances of this case, the Court held that appellant's Sixth Amendment right was not violated, and affirmed the order of the Superior Court. View "Commonwealth v. Dyarman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determined the standard and scope of review that applies when a court reviews a final determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR) under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL). Appellee, an employee of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, requested access to records from the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA). PEMA determined that disclosure of identities on the requested documents was critical information that revealed gaps, vulnerabilities and emergency response capabilities in the Commonwealth, and that disclosure would be reasonably likely to jeopardize or threaten public safety or preparedness or public protection activities, and redacted portions. Appellee appealed, and an OOR appeals officer, without holding a hearing, but after requesting and receiving memoranda of law from Appellee and PEMA, issued a final written determination that redaction of the information was proper. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth Court correctly held that its standard of review was de novo and that its scope of review is broad or plenary when it hears appeals from determinations made by appeals officers under the RTKL. View "Bowling v. Office of Open Records" on Justia Law

Petitioners claimed that Article V, Section 16(b) of the state charter was unconstitutional. They argued that section 16(b) deprived them of their inherent right to be free of age-based discrimination, particularly because the section mandates that jurists retire the year they turn 70 years old. In prior decisions, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that Article V, Section 16(b) was not so irrational as to be considered unconstitutional. The Court denied petitioners' application for relief and dismissed the case with prejudice. View "Friedman v. Corbett" on Justia Law

Described as a "frequent flier of frivolous litigation," Appellee Alton Brown sought a writ of mandamus to force the Montgomery County Prothonotary to accept his complaint against various prison and state government officials. The complaint was rejected multiple times for being incomplete. The prothonotary moved to dismiss under the "three strikes" rule, and the trial court granted the motion. The Commonwealth Court overturned the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of Appellee's request for the writ. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether appellee's mandamus action constituted "prison conditions litigation" and would have therefore been subject to the "three strikes rule." Appellee argued his complaint was not subject to three strikes because in this case, the writ of mandamus was a procedural mechanism for an appellate court to review certain categories of lower court orders. The Supreme Court agreed with the prothonotary that a petition for writ of mandamus against the prothonotary may constitute prison conditions litigation and thus may be subject to three strikes: "Appellee [demanded that the Court] force the prothonotary to accept his complaint . . . just so the court may dismiss the complaint as prison conditions litigation. This is a clear waste of judicial resources, and in the interest of judicial economy, [the Court held] this mandamus petition to force acceptance of a complaint about prison conditions is itself prison condition litigation within the meaning of the statute. . . . An individual may not skirt the legislature's intent to preclude him from filing frivolous litigation merely by filing for an extraordinary writ." View "Brown v. Prothonotary of Montgomery County" on Justia Law

Appellant Robert Rega was convicted of first-degree murder and other offenses for the shooting death of Christopher Lauth. Appellant received the death penalty. Appellant filed an application for post-conviction relief which was ultimately denied. On appeal, he raised eleven claims of error. The Supreme Court took each in turn, found no error, and affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. View "Pennsylvania v. Rega" on Justia Law

Appellee Jack Fortenbaugh was charged with rape and related offenses for the sexual abuse of his stepdaughter. The Supreme Court found that the superior court erred by overturning the jury's verdict in this case and vacating Appellee's sentence based on two references during trial testimony that Appellee take a polygraph test. Because the Supreme Court found those references were not prejudicial, it reversed the superior court's order to reinstate Appellee's original sentence. View "Pennsylvania v. Fortenbaugh, II" on Justia Law

Petitioners Senior Judges John Driscoll and Sandra Moss, and Judges Joseph O'Keefe and Arthur Tilson sought to nullify the mandatory retirement provision applicable to judicial officers as enumerated in the Pennsylvania Constitution. The judges argued that they were elected and then retained to ten-year judicial terms, and that enforcement of the constitutional provision would require them to retire against their will prior to the expiration of those terms. While the Supreme Court recognized "colorable merit" to petitioners' argument that a constitutional amendment may impinge on rights otherwise recognized in the Constitution itself, the Court nevertheless found petitioners did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and remanded their case back to the Commonwealth Court to be dismissed. View "Driscoll v. Corbett" on Justia Law