Com. v. Teagarden

• Citation: 696 A.2d 169
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. John Willis TEAGARDEN, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 23 May 1997
• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Page 169

696 A.2d 169

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. John Willis TEAGARDEN, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued April 8, 1997.

Filed May 23, 1997.

Jack W. Connor, Uniontown, for appellant.

Marjorie J. Fox, Asst. Dist. Atty., Waynesburg, for Com., appellee.

Before CIRILLO, President Judge Emeritus, and JOHNSON, J., and CERCONE, President Judge Emeritus.

CIRILLO, President Judge Emeritus:

John Willis Teagarden ¹ appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County denying his motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. ² We affirm.

On November 19, 1994, Troopers Edward Schick and Thomas Reed of the Pennsylvania State Police were engaged in routine patrol when they received a radio communication that a truck had been stolen in nearby Waynesburg. Shortly thereafter, Troopers Schick and Reed saw a truck matching the description of the stolen vehicle. They attempted to stop the truck, but the truck sped off the road and onto a field. The Troopers gave chase. The occupants of the truck exited and fled on foot into the surrounding forest. Troopers Schick and Reed alighted from their cruiser and pursued the occupants on foot. The Troopers finally caught up to and arrested the occupants, one of whom was Teagarden. Upon arresting Teagarden and the others, the Troopers impounded the vehicle and its contents, which included various appliances.

The next day, Brian Waychoff arrived at his mobile home finding that it had been burglarized. He immediately went to the state police barracks to report the burglary. He told Trooper Brian A. Baker that he had left the mobile home at 5:30 p.m. the previous day and returned home at 10:00 a.m. the next morning to find the home burglarized. After conducting a thorough investigation, Trooper Baker suspected that Teagarden and the others had burglarized Waychoff's mobile home and had used the stolen truck to carry out the burglary. Trooper Baker showed Waychoff the appliances recovered from the truck which Waychoff identified as his. Teagarden and the other occupant of the vehicle were then charged with the burglary of Waychoff's mobile home.

Due to the length of time between Teagarden's arrest for the stolen truck and his subsequent arrest for burglary, the Commonwealth filed two separate actions against Teagarden. On April 26, 1995, nine days after arraignment on the burglary charge and four days prior to the commencement of jury selection in the stolen truck case, the Commonwealth filed a motion to consolidate the cases. After hearing argument, the trial court issued a rule to show cause as to why the cases should not be consolidated. In the meantime the court commenced jury selection in the stolen truck case. On June 2, 1995, the court ordered that the stolen truck case and the burglary case be consolidated and discontinued jury selection. Thereafter Teagarden filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the burglary case; this was denied. Teagarden then appealed the denial of the petition to our court. The trial court became concerned that if the consolidated cases were continued until our disposition of Teagarden's appeal that it "may have Rule 1100 problems." Accordingly, the trial court de-consolidated the cases and the stolen truck case proceeded to trial. Three days prior to jury selection in the stolen truck case, this court quashed Teagarden's appeal. A copy of our order quashing Teagarden's appeal was not given to the trial court, however, until after the jury had been impanelled in the stolen truck case. Due to our disposal of Teagarden's appeal, the Commonwealth sought to re-consolidate the cases. This motion, however, was denied.

The Commonwealth proceeded to trial in the stolen truck case after which a jury acquitted Teagarden. Following acquittal, Teagarden filed a motion to dismiss the charges in the burglary case based on double jeopardy grounds. This appeal followed. Teagarden presents the following issue for our consideration:

Whether prosecution on the charges contained at the subject case number are barred pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. section 110.2 and / or pursuant to the principles of collateral estopple [sic] as embodied in the Double Jeopardy Rule based on the verdicts of acquittal on the charges contained at case number 663 criminal sessions, 1994?

Teagarden asserts that pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110(2) the Commonwealth is prohibited from trying him on the burglary offense because in order to convict him, the jury would have to find his alibi witnesses incredible, directly contradicting the findings of the jury in the stolen truck case in which he was acquitted.

Section 110 of the Crimes Code governs situations where the prosecution is barred from a subsequent prosecution of the same defendant for different offenses. The relevant portion of Section 110 provides:

Although a prosecution is for a violation of a different provision of the statutes than a former prosecution or is based on different facts, it is barred by such former prosecution under the following circumstances:

(2) The former prosecution was terminated, after the indictment was found, by an acquittal ... which acquittal ... necessarily required a determination inconsistent with a fact which must be established for conviction of the second offense.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110. Section 110(2) codifies the ancient doctrine of collateral estoppel. Id. Collateral estoppel prevents relitigation between parties of an issue where that issue has been previously decided by a competent legal forum. Commonwealth v. Wallace, 411 Pa.Super. 576, 602 A.2d 345 (1992). In the criminal context, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is one of the many protections embodied in the double jeopardy clauses of both the Pennsylvania and Federal Constitutions. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 518 Pa. 15, 540 A.2d 246 (1988); Commonwealth v. Hude, 492 Pa. 600, 425 A.2d 313 (1980). See also Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). While collateral estoppel falls under the auspices of the double jeopardy clause, the doctrine does not automatically bar subsequent prosecution, rather it will bar prosecution only if an issue or issues essential to the subsequent prosecution were necessarily determined in the first prosecution. Id. In that regard our supreme court has set forth a three-step approach that we must employ in the determination of the present appeal:

(1) An identification of the issues in the two actions for the purpose of determining whether the issues are sufficiently similar and sufficiently material in both actions to justify in invoking the doctrine;

(2) an examination of the record of the prior case to decide whether the issue was 'litigated' in the first case; and

(3) an examination of the record of the prior proceeding to ascertain whether the issue was necessarily decided in the first case.

Smith, 518 Pa. at 26, 540 A.2d at 251 (citing Commonwealth v. Hude, 492 Pa. at 612, 617, 425 A.2d at 319, 322). In essence, our task is to ascertain "whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict without inclusion of the issue defendant seeks to exclude from relitigation." Id. Accord Commonwealth v. Cromwell, 329 Pa.Super. 329, 478 A.2d 813 (1984). We note, however, that collateral estoppel simply does not apply to all evidence a jury may have utilized in reaching its decision. Commonwealth v. Tolbert, 448 Pa.Super. 189, 670 A.2d 1172 (1995). Thus, where one or several other rational explanations for the jury's actions exist, admission of evidence in a subsequent prosecution will not be excluded on collateral estoppel grounds. Id. Only if it is "clear that the jury has spoken with respect to a particular fact, [will] the Commonwealth no longer [be] permitted to request that another jury consider the same." Tolbert, 448 Pa.Super. at 205-06, 670 A.2d at 1181.

In order to aid in our determination, we are guided by the following three cases, all of which involve a defendant's attempt to invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel. In Commonwealth v. Smith, supra, appellant attempted to argue that, due to his previous acquittal on charges of possession of the weapon used to kill the victim, subsequent charges for murder should have been dismissed. Appellant asserted that because possession of the murder weapon was an essential element of the proof of murder, that section 110(2) of the Crimes Code acted to bar the murder prosecution. In addressing appellant's collateral estoppel claim, our supreme court held appellant's acquittal did not necessarily litigate or decide an issue that was dispositive of the murder prosecution. Smith, 518 Pa. at 25-29, 540 A.2d at 251-52. In so doing, the court stated that there were numerous other reasons that could have formulated the jury's decision of acquittal on the possession charge other than the inference that appellant did not actually have the firearm. For example, the court noted that the acquittal on the...