Commonwealth v. Martin
Decision Date | 17 June 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 1590 EDA 2013,J-A12032-14,1590 EDA 2013 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. ROBERT MARTIN, Appellee |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
The Commonwealth appeals from the common pleas court's order affirming the municipal court's verdict finding Appellee, Robert Martin, not guilty of the charge of driving under the influence (DUI)1 on the basis that the Commonwealth had not presented any evidence. We reverse.
On January 4, 2013, the parties appeared before the municipal court for a bench trial concerning the above DUI charge. After the court crier's announcement of the case, Appellee waived arraignment and the Commonwealth requested a continuance because it needed a particularwitness in order to proceed. The municipal court denied the continuance request.
Defense counsel inquired whether the Commonwealth's other witnesses were present and the Commonwealth discovered that they had left without permission. The municipal court refused the Commonwealth's second continuance request and asked whether it wanted to withdraw the case. The Commonwealth immediately moved for withdrawal over Appellee's objection. After initially agreeing that the Commonwealth's motion was appropriate, the municipal court instead declared Appellee not guilty.
On February 4, 2013, the Commonwealth appealed the decision to the court of common pleas. On April 24, 2013, the common pleas court affirmed the municipal court verdict on the basis of double jeopardy. On May 22, 2013, the Commonwealth timely appealed and filed a Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).2
The Commonwealth raises one question for our review: "Did the [common pleas] court, sitting as an appellate court, erroneously affirm the [m]unicipal [c]ourt order finding [Appellee] 'not guilty' prior to a non-jury trial where testimony had not begun and jeopardy had not attached?" (Commonwealth's Brief, at 1).
It is well-settled that Commonwealth v. Vargas, 947 A.2d 777, 780 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
In this case, the Commonwealth argues that the common pleas court's "denial of [its] appeal was an error of law [because a] non-jury trial is not initiated, and a defendant is not placed in jeopardy, until the court begins to hear evidence." (Commonwealth's Brief, at 8). We agree.
It is well-settled that:
Vargas, supra at 780 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
We also find the case of Commonwealth v. Wallace, 686 A.2d 1337 (Pa. Super. 1996), instructive.
In Wallace, the parties appeared before the common pleas court for a de novo hearing on the charge of disorderly conduct for which the appellant previously had been found guilty in the magistrate court. See Wallace, supra at 1338. At the start of the common pleas court proceeding, the Commonwealth advised that it required a continuance due to the complaining police officer's unavailability. The court denied the continuance request and declared the defendant not guilty. See id. The Commonwealth advised the court that it would proceed with a less compelling officer who had been at the scene of the underlying crime, but the court repeated that the defendant was not guilty due to the Commonwealth's failure to produce evidence. See id. at 1339. A panel of this Court observed:
Id. at 1339-40 (citation omitted).
Similarly, in this case, in order to procure a necessary witness, the Commonwealth moved for a continuance immediately after the court crier called the case, and again upon discovery that other witnesses had left without permission. (See N.T. Trial, 1/04/13, at 3-4, 5). The municipal court denied both requests. (See id. at 3-4, 6). After the municipal court agreed that the withdrawal of the charges would be appropriate, it instead found Appellee not guilty. (See id. at 6, 10, 11). We are constrained to conclude that this was error.
Jeopardy does not attach until the court begins to hear evidence and therefore, where the municipal court did not hear any evidence, its not guilty verdict "certainly cannot be said to be a ruling on the merits which should implicate double jeopardy concerns." Wallace, supra at 1140. We also note that the proper action by the municipal court would have been to allow the Commonwealth to withdraw the charges or to dismiss them itself, not to find Appellee not guilty. See id. at 1139-40. Hence, we conclude that thecourt of common pleas erred in affirming the municipal court's decision. See Vargas, supra at 780; Wallace, supra at 1140.3
Order reversed and case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.Judgment Entered.
__________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
*. Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
2. The common pleas court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on July 31, 2013. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
3. Additionally, the common pleas court's reliance on Commonwealth...
To continue reading
Request your trial