Com. v. Wroten, C.
2021 Pa. Super. 124
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background:
- On Feb. 15, 2018 at 30th Street Station, Amtrak officer Charles Wroten (on duty, in uniform) ordered men out of the men’s room; commuter Darrin Rogers was inside a stall.
- Rogers testified at the municipal preliminary hearing that Wroten escorted him out, pushed him through a door into a corner, punched him in the mouth, causing a busted lip and head pain, and told him never to return to the station.
- Municipal Court dismissed the charges after the preliminary hearing; the Commonwealth filed to refile simple assault, official oppression, and harassment in the Court of Common Pleas.
- At the refile hearing the Commonwealth relied on the notes of the preliminary hearing, surveillance video, and testimony of Sergeant McKenna (who said the officer’s force was inconsistent with Amtrak policy).
- The trial court denied the Commonwealth’s refile notice, finding Rogers’ testimony contradictory, the surveillance video inconclusive, and noting lack of evidence of a pattern of force or officer misconduct.
- The Superior Court reversed: it held the trial court applied the wrong standard by making credibility/weight determinations at the prima facie stage and concluded the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case on all three charges; case remanded for trial.
Issues:
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Wroten's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/use of the municipal court transcript and surveillance video at the refile hearing | The trial court may consider the prior hearing notes/video and other evidence to establish a prima facie case | Notes of testimony were not formally admitted and are hearsay; video not properly in the certified record | Court found the items were part of the record (no contemporaneous objection), Commonwealth remedied the record; evidence properly considered |
| Standard of review at refile/preliminary hearing: may the trial court weigh credibility/assess witnesses' contradictions? | The trial court must apply prima facie standard, read evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and may not resolve credibility or weigh evidence | Trial court properly considered contradictions and video limitations in dismissing charges | Superior Court held trial court erred: credibility/weight determinations are improper at the prima facie stage; must determine only whether probable cause/elements are shown |
| Sufficiency: did the Commonwealth establish prima facie probable cause for simple assault, official oppression, and harassment? | Rogers’ testimony, video, and McKenna’s testimony together show force, injury/bodily pain, misuse of official authority, and intent to harass — satisfying prima facie elements | Facts are disputed/insufficient, video incomplete, testimony contradictory — insufficient to proceed | Superior Court held the Commonwealth met its prima facie burden as to all three offenses and reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McClelland, 233 A.3d 717 (Pa. 2020) (hearsay alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case at a preliminary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 234 A.3d 523 (Pa. 2020) (prima facie standard: evidence of each material element and probable cause to believe defendant committed the offense)
- Commonwealth v. Carbo, 822 A.2d 60 (Pa. Super. 2003) (Commonwealth may refile using same evidence presented at the first hearing or additional evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Karetny, 880 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2005) (trial court has no discretion in determining whether Commonwealth made prima facie showing)
- Commonwealth v. Martuscelli, 54 A.3d 940 (Pa. Super. 2012) (attempt to inflict bodily injury suffices for simple assault)
- Commonwealth v. Stumpo, 452 A.2d 809 (Pa. Super. 1982) (officer in uniform is cloaked with authority; mistreatment while acting in official capacity can constitute official oppression)
- Commonwealth v. Checca, 491 A.2d 1358 (Pa. Super. 1985) (official oppression statute broadly drafted to cover oppressive abuse of official power)
- Commonwealth v. Richardson, 636 A.2d 1195 (Pa. Super. 1994) (a punch causing pain can constitute bodily injury for simple assault)