Com. v. Rice, T., 2211 MDA 2015

Thomas D. Rice was convicted by a jury of six counts of criminal use of a communication facility and three counts of conspiracy to deliver heroin; sentenced to 21–42 years.
Post-sentence, Rice argued among other things that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel, that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation, and that entrapment required acquittal as a matter of law.
The trial court issued a detailed 37-page opinion: it found Rice had not validly waived counsel and granted a new trial, concluded any undisclosed informant plea agreement did not prejudice Rice (no reversible Brady violation), and held that entrapment raised a triable issue but was not proven as a matter of law.
The Commonwealth did not appeal the new-trial order; Rice filed an interlocutory appeal limited to two issues: (1) whether double jeopardy bars retrial and (2) whether entrapment required a directed verdict/acquittal.
The Superior Court considered constitutional double jeopardy doctrine and Pennsylvania entrapment law, and affirmed the trial court’s order granting a new trial while rejecting Rice’s attempts to bar retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rice)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Trial Ct.)	Held
Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after new-trial order	Retrial is barred under state and federal double jeopardy protections	New trial was granted for court error (waiver of counsel), not prosecutorial misconduct; double jeopardy does not apply	Retrial not barred; appeal denied
Whether entrapment requires directed verdict/acquittal as a matter of law	Cover story and informant’s conduct established entrapment as a matter of law	Police conduct afforded opportunity but did not so overreach as to establish entrapment conclusively	Entrapment raises triable issue for jury; directed verdict denied

Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1982) (double jeopardy bars retrial when prosecutor intended to provoke mistrial)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to accused)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 615 A.2d 321 (Pa. 1992) (Pennsylvania double jeopardy bars retrial for prosecutorial conduct intended to deny a fair trial)
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 777 A.2d 459 (Pa. Super. 2001) (distinguishing prosecutorial error from intentional subversion warranting retrial bar)
Commonwealth v. Marion, 981 A.2d 230 (Pa. Super. 2009) (entrapment analysis focuses on police conduct; objective test)
Commonwealth v. Borgella, 611 A.2d 699 (Pa. 1992) (police may not implant criminal design in an innocent person)
Commonwealth v. Weiskerger, 554 A.2d 10 (Pa. 1989) (entrapment must be so clearly established that no other conclusion is possible)
Commonwealth v. Vargas, 947 A.2d 777 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for double jeopardy questions)