Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Commonwealth appealed a superior court order that affirmed a trial court's dismissal of charges against Appellee William Wilgus for a violation of Megan's Law requirements. Appellee was convicted in 1998 of aggravated indecent assault; he received a sentence of five years to life imprisonment, was found to be a sexually violent predator, and was ordered to comply with Megan’s Law registration requirements. The Superior Court vacated this sentence and remanded for resentencing without application of Megan’s Law registration requirements; appellee was resentenced to five to 10 years imprisonment. He became subject to lifetime registration requirements because he was incarcerated when revisions to Megan’s Law became effective in 2007. The trial court found evidence submitted against him at trial insufficient to support his convictions, granted his motions for post-sentence relief and the court dismissed the charges against him. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: "Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law clearly requires sexually violent predators to notify Pennsylvania State Police of all current and intended residences, and to notify police of a change of residence. Unlike some other states that have ruled on this issue, Pennsylvania clearly defines 'residence' for registration purposes. Appellee reported an intended residence to prison authorities, and was in violation of registration requirements when he failed to report a change of residence when he no longer intended to live there. There is no exception for homeless offenders, and the Superior Court was incorrect in reading such an exception into the statute."

Defendant Andre Staton appealed the death sentence he received in 2006 in connection with the stabbing death of Beverly Yohn. Defendant was charged with a single count of criminal homicide, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count each of burglary, criminal trespass, receiving stolen property and theft by unlawful taking. Appellant testified at trial. He admitted that he stabbed Ms. Yohn, and caused her death, but denied that he had gone to the residence with the intent to harm her. On appeal, Defendant raised a single claim of error related to the penalty phase of his trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed Defendant's conviction and judgment of sentence.

In this discretionary appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4914, which prohibits a person from furnishing false identification to law enforcement authorities, requires proof that those law enforcement authorities first identify themselves to the person and advise the person that he was the subject of an official investigation for a violation of law. The record revealed that in 2009, Pittsburgh City Police officers were investigating an armed robbery. According to the victim, a young boy pointed a gun at him as he was standing at an intersection and robbed him of $10. The victim gave police a description of his assailant, and the police developed a list of individuals they knew matched the description. D.S. was one of those individuals. Plain clothes detectives then "went out actively looking for [D.S.] in essence to field contact him." The officers did not identify themselves as police officers, nor did they state their purpose for stopping D.S. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the evidence was insufficient to support D.S.'s adjudication of delinquency. The Court reversed the Superior Court's order that affirmed D.S.'s adjudication of delinquency.

Appellant Andre Jacobs was convicted and sentenced for attempted escape and conspiracy to commit escape. The Supreme Court accepted review to determine whether Appellant's sentences for these two inchoate crimes were illegal under 18 Pa.C.S. 906, which bars multiple "convictions" for inchoate crimes "for conduct designed to . . . culminate in the commission of the same crime." After careful review of the record, the Court concluded that under the facts of this case, the two inchoate crimes were intended to culminate in the commission of two different crimes, and therefore Appellant's sentence did not run afoul of Section 906.1.

In this discretionary appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether under Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act, a juvenile court is required to enter on the record an adjudication of delinquency once it has determined the juvenile committed the acts alleged in the delinquency petition, or whether the court must make an additional finding that the juvenile is in need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation, prior to entering an adjudication of delinquency. In 2007, the Commonwealth filed a delinquency petition against M.W. alleging that he and another youth robbed an individual who had just left a local bar. At an adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court found that M.W. committed robbery, conspiracy, and related charges. Later that same day, M.W. was adjudicated delinquent by another juvenile court judge on a separate delinquency theft petition, and M.W. was committed for treatment, rehabilitation, and supervision. After a hearing on the first petition, the trial court discharged the delinquency petition stemming from the robbery offense, noting that M.W. "will be adjudicated on the [theft] petition. He will still receive treatment and supervision." The Commonwealth filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The Commonwealth then appealed to the Superior Court, where it argued that the juvenile court abused its discretion and violated the requirements of the Juvenile Act by failing to adjudicate M.W. delinquent once it found that M.W. had committed the acts alleged in the original delinquency petition. Upon review, the Court held that the Juvenile Act requires a juvenile court to find both: (1) that the juvenile has committed a delinquent act; and (2) that the juvenile is in need of treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation, before the juvenile court may enter an adjudication of delinquency. In this case, the Court reversed the decision of the Superior Court.

Appellant John Koehler appealed a common pleas court order that dismissed his petition for collateral relief filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Appellant was convicted for the murder of Regina Clark and her nine-year old son Austin for which he was sentenced to death. On appeal, Appellant raised nineteen issues that primarily challenged the effectiveness of his trial counsel. The PCRA court denied Appellant relief, finding that while he raised nineteen issues, Appellant pursued only three before the court. On direct appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellant raised thirteen issues, again pertaining to the effectiveness of his trial counsel. The Court noted that Appellant's trial counsel was the same as it was for his direct appeal. Finding none of Appellant's issues on appeal meritorious, the Court affirmed the PCRA court's order that dismissed Appellant's PCRA petition.

This case was remanded from the federal Supreme Court who vacated the Pennsylvania court's prior decision in light of "Michigan v. Bryant" (131 S.Ct. 1143 (2011)). In 2004, Appellant Ricky Lee Allshouse and "M.R." were arguing in the home they shared with their three children. The argument ended with rushing their seven-month old son to the hospital for a spiral fracture to his right humerus caused by a sharp and severe twisting of his arm. The infant's four-year-old sister implicated Appellant in the incident, and he was later arrested and charged with aggravated assault, simple assault, endangering the welfare of a child, reckless endangerment and harassment. Ultimately Appellant was sentenced to one to two years in prison. On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court's admission of the daughter's statement to a psychologist violated his constitutional rights. Thereafter, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The threshold question in this case was whether the daughter's statements were "testimonial;" if they were nontestimonial, "the confrontation clause places no restriction on their introduction except for 'the traditional limitations upon hearsay evidence.'" The Superior Court concluded that the dauther's statement to the psychologist was nontestimonial under because (a) the doctor's intent during his interview with the daughter was not to obtain testimony for the purpose of a criminal proceeding, but to ensure the safety of the infant and his siblings, and (b) the environment and circumstances surrounding her statement were informal and not suggestive of an investigatory interview. The Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision to admit the daughter's statements.

Appellee Antoine Miller brutally murdered Wallace Bivens in his home, then stole his car. Appellee was arrested later that evening after police noticed him driving the car without headlights. Appellee then engaged in a high-speed chase. Appellee was charged with multiple Motor Vehicle Code violations, and police impounded the car. While attempting to serve an eviction notice on the victim, a state constable discovered the victim's decaying body in the living room closet of his apartment. Appellee was later apprehended and charged with first-, second- and third-degree murder, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, theft, and a host of other crimes. Appellee was found guilty of second-degree murder, theft by unlawful taking, and fleeing or attempting to elude an officer, and acquitted of first-degree murder, robbery, aggravated assault and possessing an instrument of crime.Appellant appealed to the Superior Court, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his second-degree murder conviction because he had been acquitted of the predicate offense of robbery. The Superior Court reversed Appellee's second-degree murder conviction and vacated his judgment of sentence. The question presented for the Supreme Court's review implicated the issue of inconsistent verdicts in the context of a second-degree murder conviction. Because the Superior Court erroneously concluded that a jury's verdict of guilt on a second-degree murder charge and its acquittal on the predicate felony of robbery were impermissibly inconsistent and could not stand, the Court vacated the Superior Court's order.

Brothers-Appellees Gerald and Louis Garzone are licensed funeral home directors in Philadelphia. They contracted with a business that sold human cadavers and harvested tissue for resale and medical use. The arrangement was undertaken without the knowledge or consent of the families of the deceased and continued through September 2005, at which point Michael Mastromarino, owner of Biomedical Tissue Services, learned that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was investigating him. Mastromarino advised Appellees to destroy their records days before FDA investigators arrived. A grand jury charged Appellees with 244 counts of theft by unlawful taking (of body parts), abuse of corpses, and various other charges. Appellees informed the Commonwealth that they intended to continue to trial, even knowing that all other codefendants intended to plead guilty and cooperate with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth prepared for trial, but on the scheduled trial date, Appellees pleaded guilty to all charges. At sentencing, the Commonwealth asked if the court would "consider requiring the defendants to pay cost[s] of prosecution or a portion," arguing that its personnel had to devote extensive resources and hours to prepare for a long trial. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether a trial court may order a convicted offender to pay the costs of the Commonwealth (for the sum total of salaries of the attorneys, investigators and other officials involved in preparing for trial). The Superior Court vacated the trial court’s imposition of such costs. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court: "Although our reasoning does not track that of the panel below, we are in agreement with its central holding that, "[a]lthough the crimes in this case are particularly heinous, if the General Assembly intended to permit such recovery of regularly paid salaries of assistant district attorneys and detectives to be costs associated with the prosecution, the Legislature would have expressly done so."

Appellant Ernest Porter appealed a common pleas court order that denied his serial petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Appellant was sentenced to death for the murder of Raymond Fiss in 1985. After his appeal was was briefed on the timeliness merits and submitted, the parties, upon direction of the Supreme Court, filed supplemental briefs addressing the jurisdictional issue of whether the PCRA court's order was final and appealable. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the common pleas court's order was appealable and that the court's time-bar determination was correct. With this case, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to address: (1) the circumstances creating uncertainty respecting appealability, in an effort to ensure that those circumstances do not arise again; and (2) the circumstances creating the unacceptable delay in this case, so that PCRA courts throughout Pennsylvania will take measures to avoid such delays. Though the Court affirmed the PCRA court's decision with regard to the time-bar determination, the case was remanded to direct the PCRA court to promptly dispose of Appellant's long-pending prior PCRA petition which raised an issue under "Atkins v. Virginia," 536 U.S. 304 (2002).