Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Michael Wayne McCORMICK, Appellee
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2001-04-06
Citations: 772 A.2d 982
Docket Number: 
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Michael Wayne McCORMICK, Appellee.
Judges: Before HUDOCK, STEVENS, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 772
Pages: 982–987

Head Matter:
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Michael Wayne McCORMICK, Appellee.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Nov. 30, 2000.
Filed April 6, 2001.
John F. Nelson, Assistant District Attorney, Chambersburg, for Com., appellant.
Eric J. Weisbrod, Waynesboro, for ap-pellee.
Nancy H. Meyers, Public Defender, Chambersburg, for appellee.
Before HUDOCK, STEVENS, and MUSMANNO, JJ.

Opinion:
STEVENS, J.:
¶ 1 In this appeal, the Commonwealth challenges the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County dismissing homicide charges brought against Michael McCormick, Jr. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
¶2 The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: In March of 1979, Alan Bennett Cosey died as a result of a gunshot wound to the chest. The police questioned Mr. McCormick with regard to Mr. Cosey's death, and Mr. McCormick informed the police that he was not present during the shooting, but that he found the body. N.T. 12/9/99 at 12-13. After further investigation, Mr. Cosey's death was ruled a suicide, and the case was closed. N.T. 12/9/99 at 13.
¶ 3 Subsequently, in July of 1997, a private investigator contacted the police and told them that, based on statements made by Mr. Cosey's widow, he believed Mr. Cosey did not commit suicide. N.T. 12/9/99 at 31. As such, the police reopened the case, including questioning Mr. McCormick again. N.T. 12/9/99 at 31-32.
¶ 4 While being questioned by the police on February 4, 1998, Mr. McCormick admitted that he was present when Mr. Co-sey was shot. N.T. 12/9/99 at 34-35. However, he maintained that Mr. Cosey shot himself. N.T. 12/9/99 at 35. On February 6, 1998, Mr. McCormick admitted that he shot Mr. Cosey because Mr. Cosey wanted to die. N.T. 12/9/99 at 37-38. Immediately after Mr. McCormick admitted that he shot Mr. Cosey, he was arrested and charged with homicide. N.T. 12/9/99 at 39.
¶ 5 Mr. McCormick filed a "Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Excessive and Prejudicial Delay Between the Criminal Incident and Arrest of Defendant." On December 9, 1999, a hearing was held on the motion, and, on March 20, 2000, the trial court granted Mr. McCormick's request. This timely appeal by the Commonwealth followed. The trial court ordered the Commonwealth to file a Pa.R.A.P.1925(b) statement, the Commonwealth filed the re quired statement, and the trial court filed an opinion.
¶ 6 On appeal, the Commonwealth advances two arguments: (1) This Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Scher, 732 A.2d 1278 (Pa.Super.1999), appeal granted, 561 Pa. 693, 751 A.2d 189 (2000), was improper, and (2) the trial court erred in applying the standard enunciated in Scher. We agree that the trial court erred in applying the holdings therein to the case sub judice.
¶ 7 In order to show that a defendant's due process rights have been violated due to a pre-arrest delay, and that the criminal charges should be dismissed, a defendant must show both prejudice to his or her right to a fair trial and that the reasons for the delay were improper. Scher, supra. In determining whether the delay by the prosecutor was proper, this Court may consider any intentional delay by the prosecution to gain a tactical advantage over the accused, and any negligent conduct by the prosecution in failing to pursue a reasonably diligent criminal investigation. Scher, supra
¶ 8 In the case sub judice, the Commonwealth does not dispute the trial court's conclusion that the pre-arrest delay was prejudicial to Mr. McCormick. Rather, the Commonwealth argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the reasons for the delay were improper.
¶9 As indicated previously, when the police initially investigated Mr. Cosey's death in 1979, Mr. McCormick told the police that he was not present during the shooting.- After further investigation, the police ruled Mr. Cosey's death a suicide and closed the case. When the police received information from a private investigator in 1997, the case was reopened, and Mr. McCormick was again questioned about the crime. Mr. McCormick initially admitted that he was present during the shooting, but did not participate in the shooting. Subsequently, Mr. McCormick admitted that he shot Mr. Cosey.
¶ 10 Based on the aforementioned, we conclude that the Commonwealth did not intentionally or negligently cause an unreasonable delay in arresting Mr. McCormick. Any delay was caused by Mr. McCormick's own lies to the police. Moreover, the record shows the police followed all appropriate leads at the time of the original investigation, and reopened the case when new information became available.
¶ 11 For all of the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
¶ 12 Reversed; Remanded; Jurisdiction Relinquished.
¶ 13 MUSMANNO, J., files a dissenting opinion.
. As the Commonwealth properly notes, this panel may not overrule the prior panel's decision in Scher. Also, Scher is presently before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.