Court Opinion

ID: 9651717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:32:24.901529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:37.922701
License: Public Domain

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
dissenting.
In Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus, 462 Pa. 43, 337 A.2d 873 (1975), and cases cited therein, we determined that the “grant or refusal of a change of venue is within the sound *289discretion of the trial court.” The “test is whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error which controlled the outcome of the case.” Commonwealth v. Swanson, 432 Pa. 293, 248 A.2d 12 (1968). While I would have preferred a more adequate and poignant rendition of the magistrate’s potential partiality, I cannot say that the trial court’s interpretation of the magistrate’s testimony is so unreasonable or irrational as to rise to the level of an abuse of discretion. That interpretation may not be as sharply defined or of sufficient weight as a pure and perfect example requires, but it is not utterly without some logical merit. I believe that before we overturn an exercise of judicial discretion, therefore, we should be very sensitive to the standard of our review.
More importantly for my present concern is the fact that Pa.R.Crim.P. 23 (Comment) “is intended to impose the responsibility on the president judge.” I read that to mean that we have lodged in those officers the supervisory role in such matters as arise in their jurisdictions. I see no reason to distrust that judgment or get involved in an endless game of second-guessing those decisions. Presumably we delegated that power to avoid this very problem. Nor is this a “judge-shopping” case for the same reasons. “Forum-shopping” occurs when the legal rules themselves allow parties to search out the most favorable courts without any check on their freedom to shop around. That is not the case here under Rule 23. The ability to move a case or change judges rests with the court and not with the shopper. It is the court itself which decides whether a change of court or a change of judges will be allowed: that is precisely why we gave president judges the supervisory role in the first instance.
I, therefore, dissent and would affirm the decision of the Superior Court.
McDERMOTT, J., joins this dissenting opinion.