Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2002, Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine (“LECOM”) petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County to establish a private police force, which was granted. Since that time, LECOM has petitioned the common pleas court for the appointment of additional officers. Relevant here, from March of 2016 through November of 2019, the Honorable Stephanie Domitrovich had signed several orders, granting petitions filed by LECOM to appoint the private police officers. Judge Domitrovich’s son, Attorney Aaron Susmarski, represented LECOM in these matters. In 2019, a fellow member of the judiciary informed the Honorable John Trucilla, then-President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, that Judge Domitrovich repeatedly signed orders and granted her son’s petitions filed on behalf of LECOM. Judge Trucilla further became aware that Judge Domitrovich personally had signed her son’s name on a LECOM petition, personally filed some of the petitions on her son’s behalf, and personally submitted filing fees in relation to some of the petitions. Receiving no assurance from Judge Domitrovich that she would stop facilitating and adjudicating petitions filed by her son, President Judge Trucilla issued the administrative order now before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found the order was not appealable. The Court further declined to exercise King’s Bench jurisdiction over this purely administrative matter and, instead, invoked its general supervisory and administrative authority over the courts afforded by Article V, Section 10(a) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court expressed its intent to dispose of this controversy internally, "as is typical of administrative court disputes." View "In Re: Domitrovich" on Justia Law

This appeal centered on whether law enforcement agents violated the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution when, although issuing Miranda warnings to an arrestee during an interrogation, they failed to specifically apprise him that criminal charges already had been filed against him. In October 2016, Appellant Jordan Rawls and Joseph Coleman perpetrated a home-invasion robbery, during which Kristine Kibler and her son, Shane Wright, were shot and killed. An accomplice, Casey Wilson, served as getaway driver. While shackled, Appellant was interrogated by agents for a period of five-and-one- half hours. At the outset, the lead investigator read Appellant his Miranda rights. He was also specifically admonished that: he was under arrest; he wasn’t free to leave; the agents were investigating the criminal homicides that had appeared in the news; and they had probable cause to obtain a warrant for his arrest. The agents, however, did not specifically advise Appellant that charges already had been lodged against him. During the interrogation, Appellant initially denied knowing Coleman or Wilson and pervasively lied about his whereabouts before, at, and after the time of the home invasion. The agents repeatedly confronted him with contrary evidence. Ultimately, Appellant admitted that he was present at the crime scene when the robbery and homicides were committed, but he professed to having been unarmed, claiming to have served “basically like . . . the lookout.” With regard to the charges filed, Appellant argued that without such information, the waiver of his rights could not be deemed to have been knowing and intelligent. After conducting a hearing, the suppression court found that Appellant had rendered a valid waiver of his right to counsel after receiving appropriate Miranda warnings; the court found nothing to indicate that he was incapable of understanding the rights explained to him and no evidence that the agents threatened, tricked, or cajoled him. Finding no error in the suppression court's judgment, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed: there was no per se rule invalidating such a waiver merely because an arrestee was not advised that charges had been filed. View "Pennsylvania v. Rawls" on Justia Law

The issue presented to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in this appeal centered on whether Appellant James Cobbs’ conviction of assault by a life prisoner was vitiated where a court subsequently vacated his predicate sentence of life imprisonment on grounds that it violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and resentenced him on the underlying offense to a term of 40 years to lifetime incarceration. The Supreme Court held that under the circumstances presented, Appellant’s life sentence imposed for his conviction of assault by a life prisoner could not stand. View "Pennsylvania v. Cobbs" on Justia Law

The trial court in this case denied a county agency’s petitions to terminate involuntarily the parental rights of a mother. The agency appealed to the Superior Court, which reversed the trial court’s order and effectively terminated the mother’s parental rights to two of her children. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the mother’s petitions for allowance of appeal to consider two issues: (1) whether the Superior Court’s decision conflicted with the Supreme Court's decision in In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010); and (2) whether the Superior Court erred by substituting its judgment for that of the trial court. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the Superior Court exceeded its standard of review. "Rather than examining the record to determine whether it supports the trial court’s conclusion that the various conditions that led to the Children’s removal from Mother’s custody no longer continue to exist, the intermediate court focused exclusively on one condition that led to the Children’s removal, i.e., Mother’s mental health issues, and searched the record to support its view that Mother has failed to address this condition adequately. Because the Superior Court erred by substituting its judgment for that of the trial court, we vacate the Superior Court’s judgment and reinstate the trial court’s order." View "In the Interest of: S.K.L.R." on Justia Law

This discretionary appeal concerned discovery in a medical negligence lawsuit in which the patient suffered complications following surgery at a hospital. The issue was whether certain portions of the hospital’s credentialing file for the doctor who performed the surgery were protected from discovery. The hospital claimed protection under the Peer Review Protection Act and the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act. The Supreme Court held: (1) a hospital’s credentials committee qualified as a “review committee” for purposes of Section 4 of the Peer Review Protection Act to the extent it undertakes peer review; and (2) the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act protects from disclosure the responses given by the National Practitioner Data Bank to queries submitted to it – and this protection exists regardless of any contrary aspect of state law. The order of the Superior Court was reversed insofar as it ordered discovery of the NPDB query responses. It was vacated in all other respects and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Leadbitter v. Keystone, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant Gregory Jordan was arrested for his alleged participation in the robbery of Tishana Nowlin. He was charged at docket number 2017-1702 with criminal attempt - homicide, robbery, aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy, persons not to possess a firearm, carrying a firearm without a license, terroristic threats, theft by unlawful taking, and disorderly conduct. At appellant’s request, the persons not to possess a firearm charge was severed and charged at docket number 2018-12031. In fall 2018, at appellant’s request, the parties proceeded to a simultaneous jury and bench trial where the court sat as factfinder for the persons not to possess a firearm charge at 2018-12031 and the disorderly conduct offense at 2017-1702, and the jury served as factfinder for all remaining charges. The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review centered on whether inconsistent verdicts rendered by separate factfinders in a simultaneous jury and bench trial implicated double jeopardy and collateral estoppel concerns, such that a defendant, who was acquitted by the jury on the charges it considered, could not also be found guilty by the trial court of other charges. The Supreme Court concluded that a defendant who elects to proceed with a simultaneous jury and bench trial during a single prosecution is subjected to only one trial and therefore double jeopardy and collateral estoppel do not apply to preclude the guilty verdict rendered by the judge. View "Pennsylvania v. Jordan" on Justia Law

The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of law to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court involving the state's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”). In July 2015, Corey Donovan (“Corey”) suffered significant injuries due to a collision between a motorcycle, which he owned and was operating, and an underinsured vehicle. He recovered the $25,000 limit of coverage available under the policy insuring the underinsured vehicle as well as the $50,000 per person limit of UIM coverage available under Corey’s policy insuring the motorcycle, issued by State Farm Automobile Insurance Company. Corey then sought coverage under a policy issued by State Farm to his mother, Linda Donovan (“Linda”), under which he was insured as a resident relative. Linda’s Auto Policy insured three automobiles but not Corey’s motorcycle. Linda’s policy had a UIM coverage limit of $100,000 per person, and Linda signed a waiver of stacked UIM coverage on her policy which complied with the waiver form mandated by Section 1738(d) of the MVFRL. First, the Pennsylvania Court considered whether an insured’s signature on the waiver form mandated by 75 Pa.C.S. 1738(d) resulted in the insured’s waiver of inter-policy stacking of UIM coverage where the relevant policy insured multiple vehicles. To this, the Supreme Court held the waiver invalid as applied to inter-policy stacking for multi-vehicle policies in light of its decision in Craley v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 895 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2006). The Court then determined whether the policy’s household vehicle exclusion was enforceable following its decision in Gallagher v. GEICO Indemnity Company, 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2019). Finally, after concluding that the household vehicle exclusion was unenforceable absent a valid waiver of inter-policy stacking, the Court addressed the third question posed by the Court of Appeals regarding the applicability of the policy’s coordination of benefits provision for unstacked UIM coverage. After review, the Supreme Court held that the policy’s coordination of benefits provision for unstacked UIM coverage did not apply absent a valid waiver of inter-policy stacking. Having answered these questions of law, the matter was returned to the Third Circuit. View "Donovan, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In August 2015, just before 7:00 p.m., a tan 2004 Ford Mercury Grand Marquis occupied by a single male driver travelled at a high rate of speed and struck a moving vehicle occupied by two adults and one child in a residential neighborhood in Northeast Philadelphia. After hitting numerous parked cars, witnesses saw this same vehicle strike a six-year-old child who had been riding her bike and playing on the sidewalk near her home located within the same block. The force of this collision sent the child flying into the air and landing head first in a neighbor’s side garden. The driver was then observed unsuccessfully attempting to escape by driving the vehicle into another parked car, which blocked his exit. The driver was seen immediately thereafter leaping from the driver’s side of the car and running on foot away from the path of destruction he caused. Appellant Mark Edwards was identified as the driver; he was found guilty on all charges, which included one count of aggravated assault, and one count of recklessly endangering another person ("REAP"). Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of ten to twenty-five years' imprisonment. Among other things, Appellant argued his sentence for aggravated assault and REAP should have merged if: (1) the two offenses met the elements test set out in 42 Pa.C.C. 9756; and (2) assuming arguendo the elements test was not met, Section 9756 was unconstitutional on its face and as applied, as it conflicted with the Pennsylvania judicial test for merger and violated separation of powers and double jeopardy rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Since the Superior Court abided by the language of the statute, it did not, as both Appellant and the Commonwealth suggested, "construe the statute in an overly broad manner to bar merger," the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision. View "Pennsylvania v. Edwards" on Justia Law

In this matter, the trial court instructed the jury, prior to deliberations, that one of the prerequisites necessary to establish the crime of witness intimidation as a first-degree felony had been fulfilled. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court allowed appeal to consider whether that instruction violated the defendant’s right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution as interpreted in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The Supreme Court found that that the jury found Appellant’s conduct to have encompassed one or more aggravating factors as set forth in paragraph 18 Pa.C.S. 4952(b)(1); the trial court told the jury that, to return a guilty verdict, it would have to find one of the (b)(1) aggravators. That being the case, the verdict, when purged of the taint stemming from the erroneous instruction, established guilt on the witness-intimidation charge at the third-degree-felony level. The maximum prison sentence Appellant would have faced at that level was seven years. Because Appellant was sentenced to twelve years, for Apprendi purposes the sentence was greater than the otherwise-imposable statutory maximum. Judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pennsylvania v. Dixon" on Justia Law

The victim in this case, Annemarie Fitzpatrick wrote a note in her day planner on the day before she died. The note read: “If something happens to me—JOE,” an apparent reference to her husband, Joseph Fitzpatrick, III. Both the trial court and the Superior Court held that Annemarie’s statement was admissible as an expression of her then-existing state of mind under Rule 803(3). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded the statement was admitted in error, and that the error was not harmless. Hence, judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial. View "Pennsylvania v. Fitzpatrick III" on Justia Law