Eugene B. Strassburger 3

This case involved the resentencing of Brandon K. Summers, who was convicted in 2005 of second-degree murder and robbery for a 2003 shooting death committed when he was 17 years old; he had originally received a mandatory sentence of life without parole. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, which made such mandatory sentences unconstitutional for juvenile offenders and applied retroactively, Summers was resentenced in 2019 to 40 years to life imprisonment. Summers appealed, arguing that the new sentence was an impermissible de facto life sentence and that the mandatory life maximum violated constitutional requirements. The Superior Court affirmed the sentence, holding that it was bound by its prior precedent requiring a maximum term of life imprisonment for juveniles convicted of second-degree murder before 2012, while allowing the minimum term to be set based on traditional sentencing factors.

criminal law

Evan D. Ballard was convicted after a non-jury trial of access device fraud and identity theft based on evidence that he was found in a vehicle at a gas station with five credit cards whose information did not match the names or numbers on the cards, in the context of a larger scheme involving fraudulent cards. The trial court imposed one year of probation on each count. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the access device fraud conviction but reversed the identity theft conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient because the Commonwealth failed to prove that the names associated with the scanned cards (such as Anthony Damino and Carol Adler) belonged to actual living persons rather than fictitious identities, as required by precedent in Commonwealth v. Newton. The court noted that no witnesses observed Ballard using any cards and that the burden remained on the prosecution to establish the identities were real.

criminal law

This case involves William Kornfeind, an Illinois resident injured in 2013 when a 28-foot fiberglass ladder he purchased in the late 1990s allegedly slid or telescoped, rendering him a quadriplegic. He sued New Werner Holding Co., the successor to the manufacturer (Old Ladder Co.), and Home Depot as the alleged retailer, asserting strict product liability and negligence claims related to the ladder's design and manufacture. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to Home Depot because Kornfeind failed to produce non-speculative evidence linking the ladder to that retailer. It affirmed the denial of summary judgment to New Werner, reasoning that Pennsylvania's borrowing statute does not encompass statutes of repose, factual disputes exist over the ladder's design location for conflict-of-laws purposes, and New Werner waived certain successor-liability arguments by not raising them below.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved homeowners suing Guidi Homes, Inc. and Spring House Farm, Inc. for alleged construction defects in newly built homes, with the defendants moving for summary judgment on grounds including that the claims were barred by Pennsylvania's 12-year statute of repose for construction projects. The trial court granted the motion in part, dismissing negligence claims under the gist of the action doctrine, but denied it as to the statute of repose defense, noting uncertainty in the law. On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the partial denial of summary judgment was not an immediately appealable collateral order because the statute of repose defense could still be raised and litigated at trial without being irreparably lost. The court emphasized that the collateral order doctrine must be construed narrowly to avoid piecemeal appeals and that the defendants retained the ability to seek review after a final judgment.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns Dennis L. Shires, II, who in 2002 pleaded guilty to rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, and aggravated indecent assault and received a sentence that included prison terms followed by 20 years of supervision by the State Board of Probation and Parole, subject only to the condition that he pay costs, fines, and restitution. Years later the Board imposed numerous additional supervision conditions on Shires, which the trial court later incorporated by order; after Shires completed parole and while serving probation, the Board charged him with violating some of those conditions, leading the trial court to revoke probation and impose a new sentence of three to ten years' incarceration. On appeal the Superior Court concluded that the Board lacked authority to impose conditions that were neither court-ordered nor germane to the sole original probation condition, so the trial court erred by revoking probation on that basis. The court therefore vacated the 2017 judgment of sentence, reversed the revocation order, and reinstated the 2002 sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a challenge to a warrantless search of a vehicle in a criminal prosecution, where the Commonwealth relied on the odor of marijuana and the area's status as a high-crime neighborhood to establish probable cause. The court decided that the odor of marijuana alone does not automatically constitute probable cause for a vehicle search and remanded the case to the trial court to weigh that factor along with any others in its analysis. In a concurring opinion, the judge separately addressed the high-crime area factor, concluding it should play no role in the probable cause determination because residents of such neighborhoods retain the same constitutional rights as others.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case is an in rem mortgage foreclosure action brought by MB Financial Bank against Lawrence J. Rao, Jr., after Rao defaulted on a mortgage originally executed in favor of SunTrust Mortgage. MB Financial, as assignee of the mortgage via MERS, sought to enforce the debt despite the original note being lost, relying on a Lost Note Affidavit held by its servicer SunTrust. Following a non-jury trial and prior appellate remand, the Superior Court affirmed the judgment in favor of MB Financial. The court reasoned that MB Financial established standing by producing evidence that it was assigned the mortgage and holds the Lost Note Affidavit as a business record through its agent, satisfying the requirements to enforce the instrument under Pennsylvania law.

property

This case involved Waldemar Rivera, who was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, robbery, burglary, and three conspiracy counts after participating in a home invasion robbery that resulted in the shooting death of the victim. Rivera appealed his judgment of sentence, challenging aspects of the trial and the multiple conspiracy convictions. The Superior Court vacated the convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit burglary, while affirming the judgment of sentence in all other respects, including the remaining convictions. The court's core reasoning was that the evidence showed only a single conspiratorial agreement among the participants to rob the victim at gunpoint, which encompassed the burglary and the resulting homicide; under 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(c), a defendant cannot be punished separately for multiple conspiracies arising from one continuous agreement.

criminal law

In this case, attorney Edward C. Meehan Jr. was convicted of three counts of contempt under 42 Pa.C.S. § 4132 after interrupting a Philadelphia Municipal Court judge during a preliminary hearing, laughing, making comments as he exited the courtroom, and later refusing to apologize when confronted. The trial court held a contempt hearing, accepted Meehan's guilty plea, and imposed concurrent five-day sentences plus fines. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated the judgment of sentence and reversed the convictions, holding that the record did not establish the required elements of intent to obstruct justice or actual, imminent prejudice to the proceedings under the relevant subsections of the contempt statute. The court noted that the brief exchange did not significantly disrupt the ongoing hearing and that mere disrespectful remarks were insufficient for contempt without more.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is an appeal by KWS, Inc. from a trial court order in a civil action brought by Eric Scalla in Philadelphia County, concerning a petition to open a default judgment. The concurring opinion joins the majority's analysis of the first two prongs of the three-part test for opening a default judgment but declines to address the third prong on whether the defendant set forth a meritorious defense. The reasoning is that the test is conjunctive, making it unnecessary to reach the third prong for disposition of the case, and that Pennsylvania appellate decisions have been inconsistent in the level of factual specificity required to satisfy that prong.

procedure

This case involved separated parents disputing a protection from abuse (PFA) petition filed by the mother against the father and related child custody matters for their two minor children. The mother alleged a history of physical abuse and a recent violent incident by the father against his girlfriend while the children were present. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's final PFA order granting protection to the mother but vacated the order holding the father in contempt of a prior custody agreement, finding insufficient basis for the contempt determination.

family law

This case involved Edmund Starr's appeal from a judgment of sentence imposed after the revocation of his probation for multiple technical violations, including breaches of a special condition restricting his internet access. Starr had originally pleaded guilty to sex offenses against a minor and received a sentence that included probation with the internet restriction; upon revocation, the trial court resentenced him to imprisonment and probation subject to the same condition. On appeal, Starr argued that the internet restriction was overbroad and infringed his constitutional right to free speech. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence, holding that the challenge raised a discretionary-aspects-of-sentencing issue that had been waived for failure to preserve it and was not a legality-of-sentence claim. The court noted that the condition was imposed at the trial court's discretion under the probation statute rather than by mandatory statute.

criminal lawfree speech

The case concerned Wayne Richard Glenn's appeal from his conviction for driving under the influence of a controlled substance metabolite under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d), where the metabolite resulted from his use of a medically prescribed Schedule II drug. The court held that the conviction was unlawful. It reasoned that the statute's plain language in subparagraph (iii) references the exception for medically prescribed Schedule II and III substances set forth in subparagraph (ii), so metabolites from such prescriptions do not violate the law. The concurrence emphasized that the text is unambiguous and requires no resort to canons of construction.

criminal law

This case involved a custody dispute between divorced parents M.B.S. (Father) and W.E. (Mother) over their child O.S., born in May 2002, following prior protection from abuse proceedings and a temporary custody order. Father had petitioned to modify custody, and after hearings the trial court awarded him sole legal custody. Mother appealed that order, arguing the court failed to properly consider the required best-interest factors under the Child Custody Act. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal as moot, reasoning that O.S. would turn 18 shortly after any remand, rendering further proceedings without legal effect on custody.

family law

This case concerns whether an insurer, Selective Way, was estopped from relying on a snow and ice removal exclusion in a liability policy issued to MAK Services after providing a defense for 18 months. The majority reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer, holding that the reservation of rights letter was deficient and that prejudice to the insured could be presumed. In dissent, Judge Strassburger argued that the letter was timely and clearly addressed to MAK Services, so no presumption of prejudice applied, and that MAK Services failed to show actual prejudice such as lost evidence or a different defense strategy. The dissent would therefore have affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer.

business & regulatory

This case involved a petition filed by Barbara Wolf against Miguel and Noris Santiago under Pennsylvania's Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act (Act 135) seeking appointment of a conservator for a Philadelphia property owned by the Santiagos. The trial court held hearings and determined that the unoccupied property met the statutory criteria due to its dilapidated condition, including code violations, exposed structures, graffiti, deteriorating brickwork, and other hazards. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment appointing Spring Garden CDC as conservator, holding that the evidence supported the trial court's findings and that the owners, who did not appear at the hearing, failed to establish grounds for conditional relief.

property

This case involved a father's appeal of a juvenile court order in a child dependency proceeding that suspended his visitation rights with his son, who had been adjudicated dependent in 2015. The juvenile court had suspended visits after the child reported abuse during overnight visits and was showing signs of trauma, delegating the decision on resuming visits to the child's therapist. The Superior Court held that visitation decisions, including application of the grave threat standard, must be made by the court itself rather than outsourced to a therapist, and that the court must consider less restrictive alternatives before denying visitation. The court vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether visitation posed a grave threat to the child.

family lawprocedure

This case involves Aaron Lucky's appeal from a judgment of sentence following the revocation of his probation for a 2014 retail theft conviction in Philadelphia County. After a technical violation of probation, Lucky received a new sentencing hearing in 2018 where he presented mitigating evidence of employment, family support, and medical needs, but the court again imposed the statutory maximum of three and one-half to seven years of incarceration. The Superior Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, concluding that the trial judge's comments and conduct created an appearance of bias or ill will that undermined the impartiality of the proceeding.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Brandon Segarra faced criminal charges including rape of a minor, D.G., and sought discovery of her mental health treatment records from the Horsham Clinic for potential impeachment material based on his confrontation rights. After the clinic disclosed the records to the Commonwealth without consent, the trial court ordered D.G.'s Child Advocate to review them for inconsistencies and report findings, despite acknowledging their privileged status under the Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA). D.G. appealed the discovery order. The Superior Court reversed, ruling that the MHPA creates an absolute privilege barring disclosure or in camera review of such records in criminal proceedings without patient consent, as the statute lacks any exception unlike other confidentiality laws.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the Commonwealth's appeal from a trial court order that sua sponte vacated its earlier judgment finding Edward D. Wilson guilty of indirect criminal contempt for violating an emergency Protection from Abuse order. The Superior Court vacated the September 2018 order and remanded the case for reinstatement of the July 2018 guilty judgment and for sentencing. The core reasoning was that the trial court impermissibly re-evaluated the evidence supporting the contempt finding without any record basis for its assumptions about the victim's non-appearance at a later hearing or the parties' relationship. The opinion emphasized that the trial court's action exceeded its authority and that any subsequent events had no bearing on the original violation of the emergency order.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure