Court Opinion

ID: 9905534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 17:11:15.216045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:40.563952
License: Public Domain

J-A16020-23
J-A16021-23
                                2023 PA Super 244

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                              :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                              :
              v.                              :
                                              :
                                              :
 STUART HARRISON                              :
                                              :
                    Appellant                 :   No. 519 MDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Entered November 1, 2021
  In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
                        CP-67-CR-0007632-2018

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                              :        PENNSYLVANIA
                    Appellant                 :
                                              :
                                              :
              v.                              :
                                              :
                                              :
 STUART HARRISON                              :   No. 520 MDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Entered November 1, 2021
  In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
                        CP-67-CR-0007632-2018

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and McCAFFERY, J.

CONCURRING OPINION BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 28, 2023

      I join the Majority’s well-reasoned opinion, but write separately to

emphasize the necessity for judicial review and strict scrutiny at the critical

inflection point when the Commonwealth has already determined that criminal

charges are warranted, but subsequently, seeks a nolle prosequi, relying only

upon the simple explanation of “prosecutorial discretion” based on evidentiary

insufficiency as the stated basis therefor.
J-A16020-23

       I recognize that currently, there are calls in this country for prosecutorial

reform.    In our own Commonwealth, there have been significant changes

taken by some district attorney’s offices in their approach to handling criminal

matters — some reform has been beneficial while other reformative actions

have given me substantial pause. It is my observation that we have reached

the point where a rather significant number of cases are being filed, presented

to the trial court, and then withdrawn without a full inquiry by the trial court

because the courts are affording great deference to the prosecution's

discretionary powers.

       At this juncture, I would like to point out that like the Commonwealth,

courts are also charged with protecting the public. Indeed, citizens look to

the courts to ensure fair proceedings are held and their rights are secure.1

The Majority eloquently points out that a trial court is not merely a placeholder

in these proceedings and is responsible for ensuring that justice is carried out

pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, I believe

the Majority’s analysis stops short of providing any direction to trial courts for

future occurrences which is necessary as this type of request is capable of

repetition.

       To that end, I suggest that when faced with a prosecutor who has filed

a motion for nolle prosequi, a reviewing court should be required to conduct
____________________________________________

1 Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 346 (1970) (“As guardians of the public
welfare, our state . . . judicial systems strive to administer equal justice to the
rich and the poor, the good and the bad, the native and foreign born of every
race, nationality, and religion.”).

                                           -2-
J-A16020-23

an on-the-record colloquy in order to discharge its responsibility and ensure

that the judicial process is not being abused or utilized for pretextual or

improper reasons.    This colloquy would require the prosecution to explain

precisely what facts or circumstances changed leading up to its decision to

seek a nolle pros and why the decision is being made. It is only after a full

inquiry is completed that a trial court can fulfill its responsibility of ensuring

the prosecution’s decision is proper.

      Thus, I respectfully concur.

      President Judge Panella joins this concurring opinion.

                                        -3-