Com. v. Branch, L.
Com. v. Branch, L. No. 1947 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Aug 15, 2017Background
- Louis Henry Branch was bound over for trial on multiple child-sexual-abuse charges after a magisterial district judge relied on Detective Heather Long’s testimony recounting victims’ statements during interviews.
- Detective Long — the Commonwealth’s sole preliminary-hearing witness — testified to out-of-court statements by two victims; the MDJ overruled hearsay objections and found a prima facie case.
- Branch was incarcerated pretrial for inability to post bail and filed a habeas petition arguing the prima facie case rested on inadmissible hearsay and violated due process and confrontation rights.
- At the habeas hearing the Commonwealth relied on the preliminary-hearing transcript; the trial court barred defense witnesses aimed at attacking victim credibility or the detective’s personal knowledge and denied habeas relief.
- Branch appealed the denial of habeas corpus to the Superior Court and argued Rule 542(D) permitting hearsay to establish prima facie cases violates confrontation rights; the Superior Court sua sponte examined appealability under the collateral-order rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal from denial of pretrial habeas is an appealable collateral order | Branch: exceptional circumstances (incarceration, constitutional claim) justify interlocutory review | Commonwealth: denial of habeas for insufficient evidence is generally not an appealable order | Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction; collateral-order elements not met given precedent (Ricker) and lack of broad public-policy interest |
| Whether Pa.R.Crim.P. 542(D) allows proving elements by hearsay at preliminary hearings | Branch: permitting hearsay to establish prima facie case violates confrontation and due process rights | Commonwealth: Rule 542(D) and Ricker allow hearsay to prove a prima facie case at preliminary hearing | Court declined to revisit Ricker; Rule 542(D) as interpreted in Ricker remains controlling law |
| Whether the confrontation clause invalidates use of hearsay at preliminary hearings | Branch: confrontation right requires opportunity to cross-examine the victims; hearsay-only proof is unconstitutional | Commonwealth: preliminary hearings are limited; Ricker held no state or federal confrontation violation at that stage | Court followed Ricker and refused to reexamine the confrontation issue |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by excluding defense witnesses at habeas hearing | Branch: exclusion prevented rebuttal of hearsay/double-hearsay and presentation of alibi/parole evidence | Commonwealth: credibility issues are not at issue in habeas sufficiency proceedings; evidence was properly excluded | Court found Branch failed to show these jurisdictional issues met collateral-order test and did not reach merits; appeal quashed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ricker, 120 A.3d 349 (Pa. Super. 2014) (held preliminary hearings may rely on hearsay; confrontation clause not violated at that stage)
- Vaccone v. Syken, 899 A.2d 1103 (Pa. 2006) (three-part collateral-order doctrine test)
- Rae v. Pennsylvania Funeral Directors Association, 977 A.2d 1121 (Pa. 2009) (collateral-order rule to be narrowly interpreted; test applied per-issue)
- Geniviva v. Frisk, 725 A.2d 1209 (Pa. 1999) (articulating separability, importance, irreparable loss elements)
- Rehrer v. Youst, 91 A.3d 183 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussing Pa.R.A.P. 313 and collateral orders)
- Commonwealth v. Forbes, 867 A.2d 1268 (Pa. Super. 2005) (lower courts bound by Superior Court precedent until overruled by Supreme Court)
- Ben v. Schwartz, 729 A.2d 547 (Pa. 1999) (right must be deeply rooted in public policy to qualify under collateral-order doctrine)
- In re Reglan/Metoclopramide Litigation, 81 A.3d 80 (Pa. Super. 2013) (summary of collateral-order doctrine application)
- Commonwealth v. Green, 862 A.2d 613 (Pa. Super. 2004) (discussion of date of entry/docketing for appeal timeliness)