Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Ball III, J.
2016 Pa. LEXIS 2179
| Pa. | 2016Background
- Ball was charged with DUS-DUI and convicted of the lesser offense DUS by a magisterial district judge (MDJ).
- Ball appealed for a de novo trial under Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(A), triggering the Commonwealth to seek reinstatement of the greater DUS-DUI charge.
- The trial court reinstated the DUS-DUI charge over Ball’s objection, leading to another trial where Ball was convicted of DUS-DUI.
- Superior Court reversed, discharging Ball, on double jeopardy grounds, holding that Ball could not be retried for the greater offense after acquittal by the MDJ.
- The Supreme Court granted allowance to decide (i) double jeopardy bar on reinstatement of the greater offense and (ii) whether the MDJ could convict on an uncharged lesser offense and the proper remand/retrial framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does double jeopardy bar retry of the greater offense after MDJ acquittal? | Ball argues acquittal bars retrial. | Commonwealth argues waiver via Rule 462(A) and finality interests. | Yes; retrial on the greater offense is barred. |
| May an MDJ convict of an uncharged lesser included offense and can Ball’s Rule 462(A) appeal be used to review that conviction? | Ball contends MDJ lack authority; waiver not valid. | Commonwealth argues MDJ imparted lawful lesser offense conviction; Rule applies. | MDJ can convict of a lesser included offense; Ball’s Rule 462(A) appeal permits de novo review of that conviction. |
| If double jeopardy bars retrial on the greater offense, what is the proper remedy regarding Ball’s DUS conviction on de novo review? | Superior Court erred in discharging Ball. | Commonwealth argues remand for retrial or resentencing. | Remand for de novo trial on the lesser offense (DUS) only; not full discharge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957) (acquittal cannot be retried after reversal of conviction in related context)
- Tillman, 461 A.2d 795 (Pa. 1983) (finality of acquittal; double jeopardy protections emphasize not retrying same offense)
- Green, 355 U.S. 184 (1957), 355 U.S. 184 (1957) (same as above; explicit Green reference for double jeopardy logic)