Com. v. Siminick, G., 320 WDA 2016

Glenn W. Siminick was charged in two separate misdemeanor/summary trespass cases for being on Buhl Park grounds on Sept. 10, 2014 (416-2015) and Oct. 6, 2014 (415-2015).
At the morning trial (Oct. 6 incident), the court excluded hearsay testimony that Appellant had been told by a judge he could not be in the park; the Commonwealth presented other witnesses but the court granted Appellant’s motion for acquittal, finding the Commonwealth had not proved the statutorily required "actual communication" of notice.
The afternoon trial (Sept. 10 incident) proceeded; the Commonwealth presented park staff who testified about prior direct warnings and institutional steps to ban Appellant; the court denied Appellant’s collateral-estoppel motion and found him guilty of summary defiant trespass.
Appellant was sentenced to 90 days unsupervised probation and costs; he appealed, raising collateral estoppel and sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims.
The Superior Court quashed an improperly filed interlocutory appeal, treated the substantive appeal from the judgment of sentence, held the collateral-estoppel claim fails, and deemed the sufficiency claim waived for appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether collateral estoppel barred prosecution in the Sept. 10 case	Commonwealth: case is a separate prosecution; collateral estoppel does not apply because issues were not finally decided in a way that precludes relitigation	Siminick: prior acquittal on Oct. 6 means the Commonwealth is precluded from relitigating notice in the Sept. 10 case	Denied — court found the Oct. 6 acquittal concerned lack of proof of mode of notice, not a final determination that Appellant lacked notice on Sept. 10; issues were similar but not identical and not finally decided as to the Sept. 10 incident
Whether evidence was legally sufficient to convict for Sept. 10 trespass	Commonwealth: presented evidence of prior actual communications and institutional bans sufficient to prove notice and trespass	Siminick: (raised on appeal) evidence insufficient to convict	Waived — sufficiency claim not preserved in Rule 1925(b) statement, so appellate court did not reach merits

Commonwealth v. Holder, 805 A.2d 499 (Pa. 2002) (articulates collateral estoppel / issue-preclusion framework in criminal prosecutions)
Commonwealth v. States, 938 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 2007) (discusses limits of interpreting acquittals for collateral estoppel)
Commonwealth v. Preacher, 827 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appeal-from-order procedural rules in criminal cases)
Commonwealth v. Buffington, 828 A.2d 1024 (Pa. 2003) (example where acquittal did not collaterally estop subsequent prosecution)
Commonwealth v. Zimmerman, 445 A.2d 92 (Pa. 1981) (acquittal can preclude relitigation when it necessarily resolves an element)
Commonwealth v. Phillips, 141 A.3d 512 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discusses preservation and waiver of appellate issues)
Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (failure to include issue in Rule 1925(b) statement results in waiver)
Commonwealth v. York, 465 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Super. 1983) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)