Commonwealth of PA v. W. Anderson
301 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 20, 2016Background
- William D. Anderson owned residential property in West Homestead Borough; Borough Code Enforcement Officer inspected it in April 2015 and issued a violation notice with a May 9, 2015 abatement date.
- After no abatement, the Borough issued four citations (June 30, 2015) for violations of Code §§109.1 (imminent danger), 302.7 (accessory structures), 304.1 (exterior structure), and 304.2 (protective treatment).
- The Borough introduced the enforcement officer’s testimony and photographs from August 10, 2015 and January 22, 2016 showing a bowing/protruding retaining wall, missing siding/wood, and deteriorated steps/door framing.
- A magisterial district judge originally found Anderson guilty; Anderson appealed and a de novo non-jury trial was held in the Court of Common Pleas, which again found him guilty and imposed $3,300 in fines plus costs.
- Anderson argued on appeal that (1) the Borough’s evidence was insufficient and (2) he had been previously acquitted of similar violations in 2014, so double jeopardy/collateral estoppel should bar conviction.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the convictions and that the 2015 citations were new/continuing offenses not barred by double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove Code violations beyond a reasonable doubt | Borough: Officer testimony + photographs prove each Code violation | Anderson: Officer’s testimony insufficient; minimal rebuttal (e.g., uncertainty wall would collapse) | Court: Evidence (testimony + photos) was substantial; convictions affirmed |
| Applicability of §109.1 (imminent danger) for protruding retaining wall | Borough: Wall is bowing/protruding toward public sidewalk and risks collapse, endangering passersby | Anderson: No guarantee the wall would collapse; insufficient to show imminent danger | Court: Officer’s opinion + photos supported imminent-danger finding; citation valid |
| Continuing-offense rule and daily offense metric under §11-217.2 | Borough: Each day a violation continues is a separate offense; 2015 condition distinct from 2014 | Anderson: Prior 2014 acquittal should preclude later prosecution (res judicata/collateral estoppel/double jeopardy) | Court: 2015 violations were based on later facts; separate daily offenses; double jeopardy did not bar prosecution |
| Whether prior acquittal in 2014 triggered double jeopardy/collateral estoppel | Borough: Prior not-guilty finding did not preclude prosecution of subsequent/continuing violations | Anderson: 2014 not guilty should prevent retrial on same ordinance violations | Court: Double jeopardy protection applies only where same facts/offense; here facts differed (continuing/new violations), so constitutional bar did not attach |
Key Cases Cited
- Borough of Walnutport v. Dennis, 114 A.3d 11 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in summary offense cases and that municipal ordinance violations may trigger double jeopardy protections)
- Commonwealth v. Stone, 788 A.2d 1079 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (review scope when trial court receives additional evidence on summary violation)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbons, 784 A.2d 776 (Pa. 2001) (double jeopardy bars retrial where prosecution clearly failed to meet its burden and a second trial would merely afford another chance to supply missing evidence)
- Commonwealth v. States, 938 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 2007) (double jeopardy/collateral estoppel principles in criminal context)