Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether an ordinance imposing a fixed tax on businesses with gross receipts over a certain threshold violated a statute prohibiting business privilege taxes "on gross receipts or parts thereof." Appellants argued that, because the ordinance imposed a flat tax for businesses earning over $1,000,000, while exempting businesses with gross receipts below that amount, it constituted a tax "on gross receipts or part thereof." The common pleas court upheld the ordinance, explaining that it imposed a flat tax with an exemption for any business earning no more than $1,000,000 in a particular year. Thus, because the tax is not levied as a percentage of a business's gross receipts, the court reasoned that it does not constitute an improper tax "on" gross receipts. The Commonwealth Court affirmed in an unpublished disposition, rejecting Appellants' contention that the ordinance levied a tax on that part of a taxpayer's annual gross receipts in excess of $1,000,000. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that, regardless of how well intentioned, the taxing authority's actions were contrary to statute. Accordingly the order of the Commonwealth Court was reversed, and the matter was remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Appellants. View "Shelly Funeral Homes v. Warrington Twp." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a medical malpractice action brought by Appellant Thomas Bruckshaw as Administrator of the Estate of Patricia Bruckshaw (Decedent) and in his own right, against Appellees Frankford Hospital of Philadelphia (Frankford Hospital), Jefferson Health System, Inc., Brian P. Priest, M.D., and Randy Metcalf, M.D. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a court was empowered to remove a principal juror without any reason and without any notice to the parties, and replace her with the last possible alternate, without notice, after all evidence was submitted and the jury had already retired to deliberate. Upon review, the Court concluded that the removal of a juror can only be done by a trial court, on the record, with notice to the parties, for cause. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the trial court committed reversible error for which the aggrieved party was not required to demonstrate prejudice. View "Bruckshaw v. Frankford Hospital" on Justia Law

The issue in this discretionary appeal was whether a police officer violates the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act ("Wiretap Act" or "Act") when he communicates directly with a suspect via cell phone text messages while pretending to be the suspect's accomplice. "Because an officer who directly communicates with another person by text-messaging is not eavesdropping or listening in on a conversation, but is himself engaging in the communication, and because for purposes of the Wiretap Act, it is irrelevant that an officer intentionally misrepresents his identity to the person with whom he communicates," the Supreme Court held that no violation of the Wiretap Act occurred in this case. View "Pennsylvania v. Cruttenden" on Justia Law

Appellants Charles and Agnes Messina, and Lehigh Asphalt Paving and Construction Company appealed the Commonwealth Court's affirmation of the order of the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas, which held appellants' challenge to East Penn Township Zoning Ordinance No. 1996-94 was time-barred. Charles and Agnes Messina own 114.4 acres in East Penn Township where they reside in a single-family residence. Lehigh Asphalt Paving and Construction Company is the equitable owner of the property pursuant to an option contract, and it uses a portion of the property as a quarry. In 2008, appellants filed a lawsuit in the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas asserting the Ordinance was void ab initio because East Penn Township failed to strictly adhere to procedural requirements for adopting a zoning ordinance as required by section10610(b) of the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). Appellants specifically argued East Penn Township made changes to the zoning map on the night of the Ordinance's adoption and failed to provide notice to the public of these changes before enacting them. The trial court was unable to determine what changes had been made to the Ordinance on the night of its adoption, due to the record's vagueness, and offered to hold an evidentiary hearing on what changes had been made, but the parties declined. Consequently, the trial court held appellants failed to show a substantial change made and found the claim was statutorily time-barred. Upon review of the lower courts' records, the Supreme Court affirmed the holdings that appellants' claim was time-barred because they failed to meet their burden of proof that the township did not substantially comply with statutory procedure as required by the applicable statute. View "Messina v. East Penn Twp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court addressed cross-appeals in this opinion, arising from a capital matter from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The lower court granted partial relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), which the Commonwealth appealed insofar as it granted relief on Appellee Jose DeJesus's claim that he was ineligible for the death penalty under "Atkins v. Virginia," (536 U.S. 304 (2002)), because he was mentally retarded. Appellee cross-appealed the PCRA court's concurrent denial of his various other PCRA claims. At trial, before the court issued a decision on Appellee's "Atkins" claim, the Commonwealth filed a motion to reopen the record, asserting that it had recently received information from prison officials that she substantial doubt on appellee's claims of mental retardation. The PCRA Court denied the Commonwealth's motion, offering no further explanation or discussion for the denial. The PCRA court concluded that appellee had met his burden to prove limited intellectual functioning. In the court's view, the Commonwealth's evidence and argument that appellee malingered on his post-Atkins tests, while "compelling," did not "carry the day." The PCRA court also addressed the merits of the claims raised by appellee in his cross-appeal, rejecting them all. The Supreme Court concluded the PCRA Court abused its discretion in not entertaining the Commonwealth's new evidence. "The Commonwealth's proffer specified that this evidence was relevant to the intellectual and adaptive function elements of Atkins because it showed appellee's ability, not only to function within prison, but to use his wits and skills to 'beat the system' in a manner that required forethought, direction and coordination of others." The Supreme Court vacated the PCRA court's decision and accompanying order which found appellee mentally retarded and vacated his death sentences, but otherwise denied relief. This matter was remanded for further Atkins proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. DeJesus" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth appealed a superior court order that reversed an order denying appellee's petition for post conviction relief and for remanding for an evidentiary hearing. Appellee Joseph Abraham was accused of soliciting a former student for sex, and for allegedly sexually assaulting her. When the allegations surfaced, the then 67-year-old Appellee retired from teaching and began receiving pension payments. Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, appellee pled guilty to corruption of a minor and indecent assault of a person less than 16 years of age. He was sentenced to probation; no direct appeal was filed. Because the crime of indecent assault of a person less than 16 years of age is one of the enumerated offenses in the Public Employee Pension Forfeiture Act (PEPFA), appellee forfeited his pension when he pled guilty to this charge. He filed a motion to withdraw his plea nunc pro tunc, alleging he was not informed of his right to seek withdrawal of his plea or of the possible sentences he faced. The trial court denied the motion. Appellee filed a timely PCRA petition alleging plea counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him he would forfeit his pension upon pleading guilty. The PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed. "Because counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to advise a defendant regarding the collateral consequences of a plea, appellee's ineffectiveness claim fails." Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the Superior Court granting appellee a PCRA hearing on the issue of prejudice, and remanded the case to reinstate the PCRA court's order denying appellee relief. View "Pennsylvania v. Abraham" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a pro se PCRA petition in 2006 to appeal his murder conviction. The Federal Community Defender Office ("FCDO"), Capital Habeas Unit unilaterally entered its appearance.on Appellant's behalf. Federal counsel filed a lengthy amended petition, alleging numerous claims of trial court error and ineffective assistance of counsel. The PCRA court conducted an evidentiary hearing over four separate days. Following the hearing, the court denied relief. Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. Appellant's issues on appeal, as summarized by the Court: (1) whether counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and present mental health evidence to support claims of diminished mental capacity, imperfect belief of defense of others, and mitigating evidence; (2) whether counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the Commonwealth’s peremptory challenges of potential jurors; (3) whether counsel was ineffective in failing to properly question potential jurors who were excused because they expressed doubts about imposing the death penalty; (4) whether counsel was ineffective in challenging appellant’s inculpatory statements; (5) whether the jury was presented with materially false evidence by the Commonwealth and whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present an expert to dispute this evidence; (6) whether counsel was ineffective in failing to object to victim impact evidence; (7) whether error in the guilt phase jury instructions violated appellant’s due process rights; (8) whether counsel had a conflict of interest; (9) whether appellant’s rights were violated because no transcript existed of portions of his trial; and (10) whether the cumulative effect of the alleged errors warranted relief. After thorough review of Appellant's claims, the Supreme Court affirmed the PCRA court insofar as it dismissed all claims other than that of ineffective assistance of counsel associated with the investigation, development, and presentation of mitigation evidence. With respect to this claim, the PCRA court's order was vacated, and the matter was remanded for further consideration. View "Pennsylvania v. Sepulveda" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal in this case to determine, as a matter of first impression, whether a defendant in a products liability action must plead and prove as an affirmative defense that an injured party's alleged "highly reckless conduct" was the sole or superseding cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Upon review of the Superior Court record, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that in order to avoid liability, a defendant raising a claim of highly reckless conduct must indeed plead and prove such claim as an affirmative defense. "Moreover, this evidence must further establish that the highly reckless conduct was the sole or superseding cause of the injuries sustained." The Court affirmed the order of the Superior Court. View "Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc." on Justia Law

In this capital post-conviction matter, Carolyn Ann King appealed an order denying guilt-phase relief but granting a new sentencing hearing. In 1993, Appellant's co-defendant Bradley Martin received a prison visitation pass that allowed him to leave the Lebanon County prison where he was incarcerated. He met Appellant, with whom he was romantically involved, and failed to return to prison as required. Instead, the two traveled to Palmyra, where they visited Guy Goodman, with whom Martin was acquainted. After arriving at Goodman's home, Martin struck Goodman over the head with a vase, and the pair disabled Goodman by tightly binding his wrists, ankles, and neck. They then placed various wrappings around his head, sealing them with duct tape. Finally, they carried Goodman into the basement, tying him even more securely and wrapping him in a bedspread, and then leaving him to suffocate while they stole his checkbook and credit card and fled in his car. During their flight, Appellant and Martin used Goodman's credit card and checks to pay their expenses. Martin and Appellant were eventually apprehended in Arizona. In 2000, Appellant filed a timely, pro se petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Thereafter, she was given permission to file a counseled, amended petition, and her execution was stayed pending final resolution of her claims. New counsel for Appellant filed amended and supplemental petitions, raising numerous claims for collateral relief predicated on trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness. The PCRA court ultimately denied Appellant's request for a new trial, finding all her guilt-phase claims meritless. It did grant Appellant a new penalty hearing based on its determination that her trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present any mental-health mitigating evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because none of the issues Appellant raised on appeal entitled her to a new trial, the order of the Court of Common Pleas was affirmed. View "Pennsylvania v. King" on Justia Law

Appellants Highland Park Care Center, L.L.C. and Grane Healthcare Company appealed the decision of the Superior Court to reverse the grant of a nonsuit in part, affirm the denial of a nonsuit in part, and award a new trial to Appellee Richard Scampone, the executor of the estate of Madeline Scampone. Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court held that a nursing home and affiliated entities are subject to potential direct liability for negligence, where the requisite resident-entity relationship exists to establish that the entity owes the resident a duty of care. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Superior Court in part, but for reasons that differed from the Superior Court, and remanded the case back to that court for further proceedings. View "Scampone v. Highland Park Care Center, LLC, et al." on Justia Law