Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was asked to clarify the use of hearsay evidence in establishing a prima facie case at a preliminary hearing. The case involved Ronald Harris, who was charged with multiple crimes, including attempted murder. The victim did not appear at the preliminary hearings, and the Commonwealth proceeded with the testimony of two police officers who relayed the victim's out-of-court statements. Harris's counsel objected to the use of hearsay evidence, but the trial court overruled the objections and bound all charges over for trial.Harris filed a motion to quash the charges, arguing that the Commonwealth's case was established solely through hearsay, which he claimed was not legally competent evidence. The trial court granted the motion, and the Commonwealth appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the decision. The Superior Court held that all material elements of a criminal offense need to be proved at a preliminary hearing by non-hearsay evidence to avoid violating a defendant's constitutional rights to due process.The Commonwealth appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, arguing that the Superior Court's ruling was too broad and that hearsay evidence could be used to establish some elements of the crimes charged. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision but disapproved of its rationale. The Supreme Court held that while hearsay evidence could be used to establish a prima facie case that an offense has been committed, it could not be used alone to prove a prima facie case as to the defendant's identity. The court clarified that the Commonwealth must produce some non-hearsay or admissible hearsay evidence to sustain its prima facie burden as to the defendant's identity. View "Commonwealth v. Harris" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Stewart Kramer and Valerie Concinello (Parents) and Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Nationwide) over the interpretation of their homeowners insurance policy. The dispute arose after the fatal drug overdose of Michael T. Murray, Jr. (Decedent) at Parents' home. The administrator of Decedent's estate sued Parents and their son, Adam Kramer, for wrongful death and survival actions. Parents sought coverage under their insurance policy with Nationwide, but Nationwide denied coverage based on a controlled substance exclusion in the policy. Parents then filed a declaratory judgment action, and the trial court ordered Nationwide to defend Parents.The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision but based its ruling on a different interpretation of the policy. The Superior Court concluded that the policy's controlled substance exclusion applied to the bodily injury claims in the underlying lawsuit but did not apply to emotional distress damages claimed in the wrongful death action.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court's interpretation that Nationwide was potentially required to pay out for emotional and mental distress damages was contrary to the unambiguous provisions of the policy and erroneous as a matter of law. The Supreme Court concluded that Nationwide had no duty to defend the underlying lawsuit because emotional and mental distress damages in the wrongful death claims were not bodily injuries under the policy. View "Kramer v. Nationwide Insurance" on Justia Law

The case involves the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) and the City of Lancaster, Borough of Carlisle, and Borough of Columbia (collectively referred to as the Municipalities). The dispute centers around Section 59.18 of the PUC’s regulations, which gives natural gas distribution companies (NGDCs) the authority to determine the location of gas meters in historic districts. The Municipalities argued that this regulation violates Article II, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which vests legislative power in the General Assembly, not in private entities like NGDCs.The Commonwealth Court agreed with the Municipalities, concluding that Section 59.18 unlawfully delegates legislative authority to NGDCs without providing adequate standards to guide their decisions. The court therefore declared Section 59.18 unenforceable.The PUC appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The PUC argued that Section 59.18 does not delegate legislative power to NGDCs, but rather is a regulatory act under the PUC’s administrative authority. The PUC also contended that the Commonwealth Court failed to consider the safety issues related to meter placement, which is the primary concern of the regulation.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court. The court found that the General Assembly never enacted a statute giving the PUC legislative authority to determine the location of gas meters in historic districts. Therefore, the PUC could not have unlawfully delegated this authority to NGDCs. The court concluded that the Municipalities' disagreement with the PUC's regulation does not amount to a constitutional violation. The case was remanded to the Commonwealth Court for further proceedings. View "City of Lancaster v. PUC" on Justia Law

The case involves Lamarcus Eugene Drayton, who was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault against his nephew. The case proceeded to a jury trial, where Drayton was found guilty on all charges and sentenced to an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years' imprisonment, followed by five years' probation. Drayton appealed, asserting that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and that the trial court erred when it excluded an alleged prior inconsistent statement by the victim. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, and Drayton did not seek further review.Drayton later filed a petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the court sent written instructions to the jury in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 646, and for failing to call three witnesses whom Drayton claimed would have testified that he had no opportunity to commit the sexual offenses. The PCRA court dismissed Drayton’s petition, and the Superior Court affirmed the dismissal.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted review to consider whether trial counsel’s failure to object, when a trial court provides certain written instructions to the jury during deliberations in contravention of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 646, constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel per se such that a PCRA petitioner need not establish prejudice in order to obtain relief. The court held that counsel’s failure to object to a Rule 646 violation is not one of the limited bases establishing ineffectiveness per se. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision of the lower courts. View "Commonwealth v. Drayton" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Beverly Ferraro, slipped and fell at a Burger King restaurant in Butler County, Pennsylvania, and filed a negligence lawsuit against the restaurant's operators. Ferraro filed her complaint within the two-year statute of limitations for negligence actions. However, she encountered difficulties in serving the complaint to the defendants, Patterson-Erie Corporation D/B/A Burger King and Burger King Corporation, due to issues with the Sheriff's service and the COVID-19 pandemic. Ferraro eventually served the complaint through a private process server and later reinstated the complaint and served it through the Sheriff, but this occurred after the original statute of limitations period had elapsed.The defendants argued that the action was barred by the statute of limitations because Ferraro did not make a good faith effort to serve them in a timely manner. The trial court denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the Superior Court affirmed this decision. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, arguing that the lower courts' conclusions conflicted with previous court rulings on the issue of timely service of process.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the order of the Superior Court. The court held that Ferraro failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that she made a good faith effort in diligently and timely serving process on the defendants. Therefore, the defendants' informal receipt of actual notice was irrelevant. The court emphasized that plaintiffs cannot opt out of the rules to give notice of the commencement of a lawsuit by informal means. If attempts at service of process are optional for giving such notice, then no plaintiff would be required to rely on the service of process rules to impart notice. View "Ferraro v. Patterson-Erie" on Justia Law

The case involves Earl John and Christine Dwyer, who sued Ameriprise Financial, Inc. for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. In 1985, Ameriprise fraudulently and negligently induced the Dwyers to purchase a universal whole life insurance policy by misrepresenting that their quarterly premium payments would remain the same for the life of the policy. The Dwyers surrendered life insurance policies they had purchased from other companies to facilitate this purchase. In reality, if the Dwyers’ premium payment had remained the same, the policy would have lapsed for insufficient funds in 2020.The trial court found Ameriprise guilty of violating Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (CPL) and awarded the Dwyers compensatory damages. However, the court declined to award treble damages under the CPL, reasoning that they would be duplicative of the punitive damages awarded by the jury on the common-law claims. The Superior Court affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disagreed with the lower courts' decisions. The court held that treble damages under the CPL are a separate remedy available to the Dwyers and must be considered by the trial court without regard to a punitive damages award on related common-law claims. The court concluded that nullifying the availability of a statutory award because of a common-law award is not a permissible exercise of discretion. Therefore, the court reversed the order of the Superior Court and remanded the case for reconsideration of damages under the CPL. View "Dwyer v. Ameriprise Financial" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) challenged a resolution issued by the Public School Employees’ Retirement Board (PSERB), which addressed how it intended to apply a statute related to the withdrawal of public school employees from a multi-employer pension system. The Commonwealth Court dismissed PSEA’s action for lack of standing. The court held that PSEA had not shown a substantial, direct, and immediate interest in PSERB’s action or inaction, as PSEA's true dispute was with school district employers over subcontracting, not with PSERB.However, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed this decision, finding that PSEA did have standing to challenge the resolution. The Supreme Court held that PSEA’s interest in the issue was substantial as it far exceeded the interest of the public at large in the correct application of the statute. The court also found that PSEA’s interest was direct because the resolution was causally connected to the harm PSEA alleged in its ability to effectively negotiate over subcontracting decisions. Additionally, the court found that PSEA’s interest was immediate because the causal connection was real and concrete, not remote or speculative. The court noted that PSEA's averments established a substantial, direct, and immediate interest sufficient to warrant a request for the sort of remedy that a declaratory judgment action seeks—a clarification of the law to resolve a dispute between interested parties over its meaning. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court’s order and remanded the matter to allow PSEA’s action to proceed. View "PSEA v. PSERB" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was tasked with interpreting the definition of “nudity” as used in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6321. The case involved a minor, T.Q.B., who encouraged another minor, A.D., to lift her shirt during an Instagram live video. A.D., who has an intellectual disability, exposed the bottom portion of her breasts below the nipple area. The rest of A.D.’s breasts, including the nipple, were covered by a bra. T.Q.B. was charged with transmission of sexually explicit images by a minor, a second-degree misdemeanor under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6321(c). T.Q.B. argued that the nudity element of the statute had not been established because the nipple was not exposed.The trial court adjudicated T.Q.B. delinquent, interpreting the statute to cover the exposure of any part of the breast below the nipple. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, determining that the term "nudity" in the statute does not require that the nipple must be exposed for the offense to be committed.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court found that the language of Section 6321(g) does not require exposure of the nipple to establish the element of nudity. The court held that nudity is sufficiently established where any area below the top of the nipple is visible. The court concluded that the clear language of the statute and the evidence presented at the adjudication hearing established the nudity requirement, and affirmed the Superior Court’s dispositional order finding the evidence sufficient to support T.Q.B.’s adjudication of delinquency. View "In the Int of: T.Q.B., a Minor; Apl of: T.Q.B." on Justia Law

A case in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania involved a dispute over the termination of a charitable trust. The trust was established by Richard H. Wells in 1965 for the sole benefit of his alma mater, the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), with the Virginia Military Institute Foundation (the “Foundation”) named as the beneficiary. Since its inception, the Trust has been managed by an independent corporate trustee, PNC Bank. The Foundation sought to terminate the Trust and receive the assets outright, arguing that it could manage the Trust with fewer expenses and higher returns.The lower courts denied the termination, concluding that the burdens of the Trust did not meet the statutory criteria for termination under Section 7740.3(e) of the Uniform Trust Act. The Foundation appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, arguing that the lower courts erroneously considered Wells’ intent to create a trust, which the Foundation claimed was not relevant under the statute.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the lower courts’ decision. The court held that the Foundation failed to satisfy the statutory standard under Section 7740.3(e) of the Uniform Trust Act, which requires a showing that the administrative expenses or other burdens of the trust are unreasonably out of proportion to the charitable benefits. The court concluded that the expenses and burdens of the trust, including an annual excise tax and mandatory annual distribution under the Private Foundation Rules of the Internal Revenue Code, were not unreasonably out of proportion to the trust's charitable benefits. View "In Re: Trust B of Wells; Apl of: V.M.I. Foundation" on Justia Law

The primary issue in this complex case concerned a man, Ronnie Lehman, who was residing at a residential program called the Renewal Center as a condition of his parole. While there, he was discovered unresponsive due to a drug overdose, and a search revealed possession of illegal drugs. He was charged under Section 5123(a.2) of the Crimes Code, which prohibits a prisoner or inmate from unlawfully possessing a controlled substance. Lehman's legal team argued that he didn't qualify as an "inmate" under this law because he was on parole and voluntarily living at the Renewal Center.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disagreed, concluding that Lehman did qualify as an "inmate" under Section 5123(a.2), (e) of the Crimes Code at the time he unlawfully possessed a controlled substance. The court reasoned that the term "committed to" in the statute didn't necessarily imply forceful or involuntary commitment, and could encompass Lehman's situation where he agreed to reside at the Renewal Center as a part of his parole conditions. Therefore, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Lehman's conviction under Section 5123(a.2), and reversed the judgment of the Superior Court which had granted Lehman post-conviction relief. View "Commonwealth v. Lehman" on Justia Law