SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COMMITTEE ON RULES OF EVIDENCE
ORPHANS’ COURT PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE
JUVENILE COURT PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE

MINOR COURT RULES COMMITTEE

ADOPTION REPORT

Amendment of Pa.R.E. 201 Adoption of Pa.R.O.C.P. 1.22, Pa.R.Crim.P. 102.1

, Pa.R.J.C.P. 138 and 1138, and Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 242

On February 13 , 202 3 , the Supreme Court amended Pennsylvania Rule of

Evidence 201 and adopted Pennsylvania Rule of Orphans’ Court Procedure 1.22, Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 102.1, Pennsylvania Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure 138 and 1138, and Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure Before Magisterial District Judges 242 to permit the parties and the court to cite non

- precedential intermediate appellate court opinions and single

- judge opinion s of the Commonwealth
C ourt in election law matters, in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 126. The Rules Committees

have prepared this Adoption Report describing the rulemaking process. An Adoption Report should not be confused with Comments to the rules. See Pa.R.J.A. 103, cmt

. The
statements contained herein are those of the Committee s , not the Court.

On January 5, 2022, the Court adopted a recommendation of the Civil Procedural Rules Committee to permit the citation of authority in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 126 in civil proceedings. Thereafter, the Juvenile Court Procedural Rules Committee, the Orphan s’ Court Procedural Rules Committee, the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee,
and the Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee considered rules similar to Pa.R.Civ.P. 242. The Committees collectively agreed that similar rules were warranted.

While i n agreement, the Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee did not believe that further rulemaking within the rules governing family court proceedings was necessary given that those rules are presently contained within the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil

P rocedure . Accordingly, Pa.R.J.C.P. 138 and 1138, Pa.R.O.C.P. 1.22, and
Pa.R.Crim.P. 102.1 have been adopted with language mirroring that of Pa.R.Civ.P. 242.

The Minor Court Rules Committee also saw merit in maintaining consistency among the bodies of rules. That Committee observed that t he rules governing procedure in magisterial district courts neither address written briefs submitted by the parties nor require written opinions to be issued by the magisterial district judge. Nonetheless, the
Commit tee interpreted “citation” to include a verbal reference to legal authority in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 126 during the parties’ argument s or by handing up an opinion to the magisterial district judge who may then consider the authority in rendering a2

deci sion. Accordingly, Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 242 has been adopted with language mirroring

that of Pa.R.Civ.P. 242.

T he Committee on Rules of Evidence observed that the Comment to Pa.R.E. 201 discusses judicial notice of the law: “In determining the law applicable to a matter, the judge is sometimes said to take judicial notice of the law.” Id . at ¶ 2. To aid readers i n understanding that Pennsylvania intermediate appellate court opinions may be cited, and therefore taken judicial notice of, the Comment to Pa.R.E. 201 wa s amended to include references to Pa.R.Civ.P. 242, Pa.R.J.C.P. 138 and 1138, Pa.R.O.C.P. 1.22,

Pa.R. Crim.P. 102.1, and Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 242. While Pa.R.A.P. 126 now appears applicable to only appellate proceedings given the adoption of Pa.R.Civ.P. 242 and the

other rules , a reference to Pa.R.A.P. 126 was included to eliminate any potential
confusion wi th its omission.

The Committee also reviewed the current description of categories of adjudicative facts in the second sentence in the second paragraph of the Comment to Pa.R.E. 201. Presently, that sentence states: “Adjudicative facts are facts about th e events, persons and places relevant to the matter before the court. See 2 McCormick, Evidence § 328 (6 th ed. 2006).”

Th at sentence wa s revised in two aspects . First, the Committee believe d the categories of adjudicative facts stated were too limited. See 1 West's Pa. Prac., Evidence § 201

- 2 (4 th ed. 2021) (providing examples of categories that include nature, mathematics, science, medicine, language, words, abbreviations, times, days, and dates). Accordingly, the phrase, “ or other subjects

, ” has been added to the current description of the categories. Of course, this category, as well as the other categories,

must still be relevant to the case.

Second, the Committee observed that statements in the commentary should
reference the discussion of seco ndary sources of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, when available, rather than the Federal Rules of Evidence. Therefore, the reference to
McCormick on Evidence has been replaced with a reference to 1 West's Pa. Prac., Evidence §§ 201

- 1, 201

- 2 (4th ed. 2021).

The Committees did not publish these proposals for comment because of the Civil Procedural Rules Committee’s prior publication and the Court’s adoption of that
Committee’s recommendation. See 51 Pa.B. 1002 (February 27, 2021) (proposed Pa.R.Civ.P. 242 published for comment); 52 Pa.B. 440 (January 22, 2022) (adoption of Pa.R.Civ.P. 242); Pa.R.J.A. 103(a)(3) ( permitting adoption of rule without prior publi cation).

These amendments become effective April 1, 202 3

.