19 A.3d 1151
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Appellant Braman filed a private criminal complaint against Bedford County DA Higgins alleging rape in July 2008; the Office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General disapproved the complaint after investigation, citing lack of probable cause and low likelihood of conviction; the disapproval letter explained lack of physical evidence, delayed complaint, lack of credible specificity, and contrary evidence; Braman petitioned for review under Pa.R.Crim.P. 506, and the case was assigned to Centre County Court of Common Pleas after recusals; the trial court denied Braman’s petition and Braman appealed; the Superior Court upheld the Attorney General’s decision as a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was probable cause to prosecute Higgins for rape. | Braman argues Higgins admitted to intercourse and Braman claimed non-consent. | Corbett contends record shows no evidence Braman was unconscious and lack of corroboration; conviction unlikely. | Probable cause not required to compel prosecution; court upholds discretionary denial. |
| Whether Braman could prove bias or conflict requiring recusal or hearing. | Corbett was a close ally of Higgins; Braman sought hearing and subpoenas. | Issue waived for failure to raise objection at proper time; no right to hearing in Rule 506 review. | Waived; no hearing required. |
| Whether Braman was entitled to review the Attorney General’s investigative file (ex parte material). | Ex parte file access necessary to show perfunctory investigation. | Rule 576 does not apply; file need not be turned over; no ex parte violation. | Rule 576 not applicable; no right to file for private complainant; court could review approved materials. |
| Whether the trial court erred in not requiring the AG to state and prove any policy basis for disapproval. | AG relied on policy rather than facts; policies should be proven. | Brown not controlling; discretion to deny based on factual and policy considerations; no abuse. | Brown not controlling; discretion supported by the record; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Wilson, 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2005) (distinguishes legal vs policy grounds for disapproval; abuse standard when policy is involved)
- In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 2010) (prosecutorial discretion not to prosecute based on investigation; standard on review)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (rape case; evidentiary evaluations in unconsciousness scenarios)
- Commonwealth v. Wall, 953 A.2d 581 (Pa. Super. 2008) (unconsciousness and corroboration considerations in rape cases)
- Commonwealth v. Erney, 548 Pa. 467, 698 A.2d 56 (Pa. 1997) (unclear consciousness; corroboration issues in rape prosecutions)
- Commonwealth v. Price, 420 Pa. Super. 256, 616 A.2d 681 (Pa. Super. 1992) (prevalence of evidentiary considerations in prosecution decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 447 Pa. Super. 454, 669 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 1995) (en banc; policy-based reasons for non-prosecution require defined policy)