In re Wilson
Decision Date | 06 June 2005 |
Citation | 879 A.2d 199 |
Parties | In re Private Criminal Complaint of John D. WILSON II Appeal of John D. Wilson II. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
James L. Moran, Erie, for appellant.
John P. Garhart, Asst. Dist. Atty., Erie, for Com., appellee.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, STEVENS, MUSMANNO, LALLY-GREEN, TODD, KLEIN, BENDER, BOWES, and GANTMAN, JJ.
¶ 1 This Court granted en banc review of the order entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which denied Appellant, John D. Wilson II's petition for approval of his private criminal complaint. Appellant asks whether the trial court erred when it deferred to the decision of the District Attorney's office to disapprove the complaint, although Appellant had presented evidence of a prima facie case. Appellant also asks whether the District Attorney's office abused its discretion in disapproving his private criminal complaint for the policy reasons given. As prefatory matters, we must also determine whether Appellant has standing to appeal the trial court's order and, if so, what is the applicable standard and scope of appellate review in this context. We hold Appellant has standing to appeal the trial court's order sustaining the District Attorney's disapproval of Appellant's private criminal complaint. Applying the proper standard and scope of review as enunciated in this case, we affirm the trial court's order, which deferred to the District Attorney's decision to disapprove Appellant's private criminal complaint.
¶ 2 In its opinion, the trial court comprehensively summarized the relevant facts of this case as follows:
(Trial Court Opinion, filed December 19, 2002, at 1-4). "After reviewing the District Attorney's investigatory file, the statements of the parties and witnesses, the medical records of [Appellant], and considering the arguments and briefs of counsel," the trial court denied Appellant's petition. (Id. at 1). Appellant timely filed this appeal.
¶ 3 Appellant raises two issues:
(Appellant's Brief at v). This Court also directed the parties to address the proper standard/scope of review in cases involving the District Attorney's approval/disapproval of a private criminal complaint.
¶ 4 As a prefatory matter, we address the Commonwealth's claim that Appellant lacks standing to appeal the order under review. Specifically, the Commonwealth insists that once the District Attorney disapproves a private criminal complaint on policy grounds (described as "policy-declination" cases), and the Court of Common Pleas refuses to disturb the District Attorney's decision, Appellant exhausted his rights under Pa.R.Crim.P. 506. The Commonwealth concedes there is Pennsylvania law contrary to its position on standing, but urges a change in the law. The Commonwealth reasons a private criminal complainant has "an adequate measure of due process commensurate with the minimal role of [private] individuals in the modern criminal justice system," when he obtains judicial review in the Court of Common Pleas. (Commonwealth's Brief at 6). Citing the dissenting opinion of Judge Cirillo in Commonwealth v. Muroski, 352 Pa.Super. 15, 506 A.2d 1312 (1986) (en banc) and the dissenting opinion of now President Judge Del Sole set forth in In re Wood, 333 Pa.Super. 597, 482 A.2d 1033 (1984), the Commonwealth reasons Appellant, as a private criminal complainant, has no judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another person, when the individual private criminal complainant is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution. Because criminal "prosecutions are sought to rectify injuries to society, the only aggrieved party, if one exists, is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Anderson
...appellate standard of review is de novo....” Commonwealth v. Kositi, 880 A.2d 648, 652 (Pa.Super.2005) (quoting In re Wilson, 879 A.2d 199, 214 (Pa.Super.2005) ( en banc )).Commonwealth v. Vargas, 947 A.2d 777, 780 (Pa.Super.2008). Appellate review of the trial court's findings of fact in a......
-
In re Ajaj
...506(A). A private criminal complaint must, at the outset, set forth a prima facie case of criminal conduct. In re Wilson , 879 A.2d 199, 211 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc). The attorney for the Commonwealth is thereafter required to investigate the allegations set forth in the private criminal......
-
Com. v. Williams
...all questions of law, the appellate standard of review is de novo and the appellate scope of review is plenary." In re Wilson, 879 A.2d 199, 214 (Pa.Super.2005) (en banc). ¶ 7 Section 9721 of the Sentencing Code § 9721. Sentencing Generally (a) General Rule.—In determining the sentence to b......
-
State ex rel. Mariah B. v. Kyle B.
...v. GeoStar Corp. , 305 Mich.App. 374, 853 N.W.2d 421 (2014) ; Reed v. Reed , 265 Mich.App. 131, 693 N.W.2d 825 (2005) ; In re Wilson , 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2005).4 See Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. v. Kreikemeier , 279 Neb. 661, 782 N.W.2d 848 (2010), disapproved on other grounds, Hossaini v......
-
Faithful Execution in the Fifty States
..."demonstrate[s] [that] the district attorney's decision amounted to bad faith, fraud or unconstitutionality" (quoting In re Wilson, 879 A.2d 199, 215 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (en banc))); In re Priv. Crim. Complaints of Rafferty, 969 A.2d 578, 581—82 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (same). Accordingly, ......