Title: Commonwealth, Aplt v. Omar - No. 116 MAP 2007 Commonwealth, Aplt v. O'Connor (Dissenting Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 20 MAP 2008
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: October 5, 2009

[J-162A-B-2008] [M.O. - BAER, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. OMAR A. OMAR, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : No. 116 MAP 2007 Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County dated November 15, 2007 at No. CP-14-CR- 0001200-2007 Dismissing Count 1 as Unconstitutional and Quashing the Criminal Information. SUBMITTED: December 2, 2008 ______________________________________________________________________ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. DANIEL J. O’CONNOR, Appellee : : : : : : : : : No. 20 MAP 2008 Appeal from the Order of the Centre County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, dated January 25, 2008 at No. CP-14-CR-2020-2007. ARGUED: December 2, 2008 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE EAKIN DECIDED: October 5, 2009 Whilst I join Madame Justice Greenspan’s dissent concluding Pennsylvania’s Trademark Counterfeiting Statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4119, is not so vague and overbroad as to be deemed unconstitutional, I write separately because of references contrasting this statute to our recent holding in Malt Beverages Distributions Association v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, __ A.2d __ (Pa. June 15, 2009). In her dissent, Madame Justice Greenspan states this Court properly found the statute at issue in Malt Beverages to be ambiguous, yet now refuses to find ambiguity in the current statute, which I find to contain even more tenuous language. Dissenting Slip Op., at 5-6. I dissented in Malt Beverages, believing the statute there was not ambiguous. Therefore, I cannot agree with statements suggesting this Court properly found statutory ambiguity in Malt Beverages. In all other aspects, I join Madame Justice Greenspan’s dissent.