Com. v. Rohrbaugh, J.
1683 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 13, 2017Background
- Appellant Jeffery (Jeffrey) Rohrbaugh was charged with Sale of Firearms and Unsworn Falsification for conduct on August 3, 2014 (Wal‑Mart) and separately for the same offenses on August 9, 2014 (Dick's Sporting Goods).
- In the first (former) prosecution (Aug. 9 incident) Rohrbaugh was acquitted of Sale of Firearms and convicted of Unsworn Falsification after a jury trial.
- The Commonwealth then prosecuted the August 3 matter (instant case); Rohrbaugh moved to dismiss under 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 (compulsory joinder/former prosecution), arguing the two prosecutions arose from the same criminal episode.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the offenses occurred on different dates and at different locations, required different witnesses, and showed a clear break between incidents.
- The Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s reasoning that the two incidents were not the “same criminal conduct” nor part of the “same criminal episode.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 110 bars prosecution of the Aug. 3 charges because they arose from the same criminal episode as the Aug. 9 prosecution | Commonwealth: prosecutions are distinct and not barred (implied) | Rohrbaugh: the Aug. 3 and Aug. 9 offenses are the same criminal episode — compulsory joinder required under § 110 | Court held § 110 does not bar the Aug. 3 prosecution; offenses are separate episodes (different dates, locations, witnesses, and a clear break) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fithian, 961 A.2d 66 (Pa. 2008) (sets four‑part test for compulsory joinder under § 110)
- Commonwealth v. Miskovitch, 64 A.3d 672 (Pa. Super. 2013) (examines temporal and logical relationship factors; no substantial duplication of issues means separate episodes)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 435 A.2d 620 (Pa. Super. 1981) (close‑in‑time offenses can still be separate episodes when there is a clear break in conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Wittenburg, 710 A.2d 69 (Pa. Super. 1998) (logical relationship is a key consideration in single‑episode analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Pries, 861 A.2d 951 (Pa. Super. 2004) (articulates the § 110 compulsory joinder/prerequisite factors)
- Commonwealth v. Barber, 940 A.2d 369 (Pa. Super. 2007) (interlocutory § 110 claims are immediately appealable)
- Commonwealth v. Vargas, 947 A.2d 777 (Pa. Super. 2008) (discusses standard of review for § 110 legal questions)