Court Opinion

ID: 9954749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 20:14:30.815253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:16.167415
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                             EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,                   : No. 337 EAL 2023
                                                :
                    Petitioner                  :
                                                : Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                                : from the Order of the Superior Court
             v.                                 :
                                                :
                                                :
NATHANIEL WILLIAMS,                             :
                                                :
                    Respondent                  :

                                        ORDER

PER CURIAM

      AND NOW, this 26th day of March, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

      (1)   Did the Superior Court err in holding that a signed and initialed
            transcription of a police interview is not a “written statement” for
            purposes of establishing a prima facie case of unsworn falsification
            to authorities under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904?

      (2)   Did the Superior Court err in holding that the Commonwealth failed
            to establish a prima facie case of obstructing administration of law or
            other governmental function under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5101?

      (3)   In holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie
            case of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, 18 Pa.C.S.
            § 4910, and tampering with public records or information, 18 Pa.C.S.
            § 4911, did the Superior Court fail to evaluate the evidence under the
            correct standard of review?