Commonwealth v. Anderson
38 A.3d 828
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Commonwealth seeks retrial after remand for new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct; misconduct occurred after remand but before retrial.
- Prior appellate decision discharged D.M. and remanded for new trial on T.C. and J.L. charges due to prosecutorial misconduct, but did not bar retrial at that time.
- On remand, competency hearings were held for T.C. and J.L.; the Commonwealth challenged rulings and sought to retrial after addressing taint concerns.
- A pretrial order restricted prosecutorial interviewing of witnesses and required logs, but the prosecutor allegedly violated these orders.
- At a June 6, 2008 competency hearing, the prosecutor’s meetings with J.L. and rehearsed questions were found to constitute egregious misconduct; discovery and taint issues followed.
- Trial court ultimately dismissed the charges on double jeopardy grounds; appellate court affirmed overruling retrial and the Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-remand pre-retrial prosecutorial misconduct bars retrial under PA double jeopardy. | Anderson – misconduct after remand should bar retrial under Smith/Martorano. | Anderson – misconduct occurred pre-retrial and can be remedied; not a bar to retrial. | Yes; post-remand pre-retrial misconduct can bar retrial under PA double jeopardy. |
| Whether the misconduct was intentional to prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial. | Commonwealth contends no intentional prejudice proven. | Appellee asserts purposeful taint and deceit to secure conviction. | The misconduct was intentional and prejudicial, warranting dismissal. |
| Whether pretrial misconduct discovered before the retrial can be remedied by sanctions instead of dismissal. | Commonwealth argues dismissal appropriate due to systemic misconduct. | Sanctions sufficient; not necessary to dismiss. | Sanctions are appropriate; but where misconduct is egregious and prejudicial, dismissal is permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 532 Pa. 177, 615 A.2d 321 (1992) (prosecutorial misconduct can bar retrial when it denies fair trial; not automatic in all cases)
- Commonwealth v. Martorano, 559 Pa. 533, 741 A.2d 1221 (1999) (prosecutorial overreaching to deprive defendant of fair trial supports double jeopardy bar)
- Commonwealth v. Simons, 514 Pa. 10, 522 A.2d 537 (1987) (double jeopardy attaches to mistrials intentionally caused by misconduct; Kennedy standard acknowledged)
- Commonwealth v. Burke, 566 Pa. 402, 781 A.2d 1136 (2001) (dismissal as extreme sanction; used where egregious misconduct and prejudice; sparingly)
- Commonwealth v. Rightley, 421 Pa. Super. 270, 617 A.2d 1289 (1992) (illustrative early view on prosecutorial misconduct and mistrial)