Com. v. Norton, H., Jr., 144 A.3d 139

Defendant (Norton) was charged with materially false written statement and unsworn falsification for allegedly lying on ATF Form 4473 about being subject to a Florida PFA that ran through Nov. 19, 2014.
Pretrial: defendant obtained two continuances for plea negotiations and trial was set for Dec. 22, 2015 after jury selection on Dec. 7.
At jury selection defense indicated he would claim he only was evicted from the residence and did not know the PFA restrained him from harassing/stalking; Commonwealth then sought documents and witnesses from the Florida PFA proceeding.
On Dec. 17 the Commonwealth moved for a continuance to obtain a certified affidavit of service, the PFA hearing transcript, and testimony from the ex-wife and her counsel; the Commonwealth had a certified PFA order but said it needed witnesses to prove what defendant knew.
Trial court denied the Commonwealth’s continuance request, finding the Commonwealth had notice of the defense from the affidavit and earlier interview and therefore lacked diligence in a last-minute search for witnesses; court concluded denial did not substantially hinder prosecution.
Superior Court affirmed, applying deferential abuse-of-discretion review and concluding the trial court reasonably found lack of Commonwealth diligence in procuring witnesses/documents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Commonwealth's motion for a continuance to secure witnesses/documents to rebut defendant's asserted lack-of-notice defense	Commonwealth: it only learned of the specific notice-defense at jury selection and needed time to obtain Florida PFA transcript, affidavit of service, and witnesses (ex-wife, her counsel) who are critical to proving defendant's knowledge	Norton: defense had been apparent from charging affidavit and his prior interview; defense counsel offered stipulations to authenticity of PFA order and transcript and defendant was ready for trial; further delay would prejudice defendant	Denied: affirmed. Trial court did not abuse discretion because Commonwealth lacked due diligence in securing evidence it should have anticipated and the court reasonably prioritized avoiding further delay

Commonwealth v. Brooks, 628 Pa. 524, 104 A.3d 466 (2014) (continuance decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 77 A.3d 663 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial judges have substantial latitude in scheduling; continuances disfavored absent compelling reasons)
Commonwealth v. Micelli, 573 A.2d 606 (Pa. Super. 1990) (factors for continuance to secure material witness)
Commonwealth v. Matis, 551 Pa. 220, 710 A.2d 12 (1998) (Commonwealth may appeal order denying continuance when certified under Pa.R.A.P. 311)