Com. v. North, R.
1618 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 16, 2016Background
- North was charged with sexually abusing his niece (the Child); at the preliminary hearing the Child testified to abuse but later recanted at trial.
- The initial ADA on the case, Carrie Sarhangi, interviewed the Child outside the mother’s presence at the preliminary hearing; a child advocate and attorney were appointed to protect the Child’s interests.
- At trial the prosecution called ADA Sarhangi to explain the Child’s prior statements and the family dynamics; during her narrative she volunteered opinions vouching for the Child’s credibility.
- The trial court overruled defense objections and allowed Sarhangi to testify that she believed the Child was truthful; North was convicted on several counts but acquitted of rape.
- On direct appeal the Superior Court found the trial court erred in admitting Sarhangi’s credibility opinion and granted a new trial. North moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, arguing the Commonwealth intentionally deprived him of a fair trial; the remand court denied the motion.
- The Superior Court affirmed the remand court, holding the Commonwealth’s conduct—while improper—was not shown to be intentionally aimed at depriving North of a fair trial, so double jeopardy did not bar retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (North) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retrial is barred by Pennsylvania double jeopardy where a prosecution witness (a former ADA) vouched for the victim’s credibility | North: Sarhangi’s vouching was intentional prosecutorial misconduct aimed to deny a fair trial, barring retrial | Commonwealth: The testimony was improper error or an ill‑advised strategy, not intentional conduct to deny a fair trial | Held: No double jeopardy bar; record does not show intent to deprive North of a fair trial |
| Whether witness/prosecutor’s unsolicited credibility opinion can be evidence of intent to subvert the process | North: Unsolicited vouching by a prosecutor‑witness demonstrates intent to prejudice | Commonwealth: No evidence trial ADA colluded; the statements followed a narrative and resulted from trial court rulings | Held: Unsolicited statements were improper but, given context and court rulings, did not show requisite intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 615 A.2d 321 (Pa. 1992) (Pennsylvania double jeopardy protects against retrial when prosecutorial misconduct is intended to deprive defendant of a fair trial)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 777 A.2d 459 (Pa. Super. 2001) (distinguishing inadvertent error from intentional subversion of the judicial process)
- Commonwealth v. Kearns, 70 A.3d 881 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussing standards for prosecutorial intent and retrial)
- Commonwealth v. Martorano, 741 A.2d 1221 (Pa. 1999) (retrial impermissible where prosecution ignored constitutional fair‑trial mandate)
- Commonwealth v. Graham, 109 A.3d 733 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate standard of review for findings implicating credibility and weight of evidence)