Court Opinion

ID: 9719631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:57:29.382519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:08.504890
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
I agree that the Commonwealth’s appeal should be quashed and appellee discharged. The majority correctly holds that the factfinding of the trial court precludes appeal *174by the Commonwealth. To permit review here would plainly “expose the defendant to the risk of a second trial after the finder of fact had ruled in [her] favor in the first.” United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975), (explaining United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896).
However, I disagree with the majority’s observation that the trial court in this nonjury case erred by making factual findings in the course of granting appellee’s demurrer. Rule 1102(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for such fact-finding in a nonjury trial.
“When a defendant waives a jury trial, the trial judge shall determine all questions of law and fact and render a verdict which shall have the same force and effect as a verdict of a jury.”
Therefore, the trial court properly resolved questions of fact raised by the Commonwealth’s evidence.