The case involved Emily Joy Gross's appeal from the denial of her motion to dismiss state criminal charges on double jeopardy grounds after a prior federal prosecution. Gross had been charged in Monroe County with conspiracy, unlicensed firearm carrying, prohibited possession, and related offenses as an accomplice or co-conspirator, stemming from her purchase of a handgun that her boyfriend later used in a kidnapping and shootout that killed a state trooper; she had previously pled guilty in federal court to making a false statement on a firearm purchase form. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the pending state charges were not based on the same conduct as the federal case under 18 Pa.C.S. § 111. The court reasoned that the federal and Pennsylvania firearm statutes each require proof of distinct facts and address substantially different harms, so double jeopardy did not bar the state prosecution.
This case involved Eric Watson's appeal from his resentencing in Philadelphia County after bench trial convictions for robbery, theft, receipt of stolen property, and simple assault stemming from an incident where he followed a woman, grabbed her wallet, and fled. On remand from a prior appeal, the trial court imposed a longer aggregate sentence, denied a new presentence investigation report and recusal motion, and sentenced separately for simple assault and robbery. The Superior Court vacated the judgment of sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge, holding that the increased sentence lacked justification on the record, the trial judge had demonstrated grounds requiring recusal, and the simple assault conviction merged with robbery for sentencing purposes because both arose from the same act and the elements of simple assault were included in the robbery charge.
This case involves the Commonwealth appealing a trial court's order removing the Philadelphia District Attorney's office and appointing a special prosecutor in a probation revocation proceeding for defendant Demetrius Mayfield, who had new criminal charges pending. The Superior Court reviewed the procedural history, including the trial court's directive for the DA to proceed with revocation before disposition of the new charges, contrary to the DA's internal policy. The court concluded that the appeal concerns the supersession of a district attorney by a trial court. Under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 722(5), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, requiring a petition for review rather than a direct appeal to the Superior Court. The Superior Court therefore transferred the case to the Supreme Court.
The case involved Bradley Kline, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, seeking a declaratory judgment against Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company regarding his entitlement to stacked underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under his own auto policy and his mother's separate policy with the same insurer. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the trial court's December 2018 order granting partial summary judgment and remanded with instructions for the trial court to enter summary judgment in Kline's favor on his right to claim stacked UIM coverage under both policies. The core reasoning was that Travelers did not obtain new stacking rejection forms when Kline added vehicles to his policy, and the household vehicle exclusion in his mother's policy was unenforceable under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Gallagher decision, which applies retroactively to this pending case and allows Kline to access combined limits of $200,000. The court directed that any award of money damages be determined separately.
This case involved a minor, N.M., who was adjudicated delinquent in Montgomery County Juvenile Court on multiple counts of theft by unlawful taking and burglary after entering homes in Norristown. N.M. appealed the resulting dispositional order, arguing that his confession should have been suppressed because police obtained it without a valid Miranda waiver or the presence of an interested adult during the afternoon interview session. The Superior Court affirmed the order, holding that the totality of the circumstances showed N.M. made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his rights after receiving Miranda warnings. The court further reasoned that the mother's decision not to attend or participate, combined with the several hours that had passed since an earlier interview, supported the validity of the statement under Pennsylvania juvenile law precedents.
This case involved a widow suing multiple manufacturers and suppliers of industrial equipment after her husband was diagnosed with mesothelioma from asbestos exposure and later died. The trial court had precluded the husband's affidavit and deposition testimony from consideration and granted summary judgment to several defendants on grounds including lack of product identification. The Superior Court reversed the preclusion order, holding that the affidavit was properly executed under penalty of perjury and thus usable, and that the deposition testimony qualified for a hearsay exception under Pa.R.E. 804(b)(1)(B) because the defendants had attended and had an opportunity to cross-examine the now-deceased witness. The court therefore vacated the summary judgments and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the excluded evidence was necessary to oppose the motions.