Title: Commonwealth v. Scher (Concurring Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-72-2000] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. STEPHEN BARRY SCHER, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 14 MAP 2000 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered June 7, 1999 at No. 4778PHL97, which reversed the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County, Criminal Division, entered October 22, 1997 at No. 1996-174CR 732 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Super. 1999) ARGUED: May 2, 2000 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO Decided: August 20, 2002 I join the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court except for that portion of its decision that applies the second prong of the due process standard for pre-arrest delay, as developed by the lead opinion, to the facts of the instant case. I agree with the lead opinion that Scher failed to meet the threshold burden of demonstrating actual prejudice. Once this conclusion is reached, however, I see no need to even consider the second prong of the test. I would simply hold that Scher's due process claim fails because he did not demonstrate actual prejudice.