Commonwealth v. Castro, 625 Pa. 582

Appellee was convicted at bench trial of conspiracy and possession of a controlled substance, but not PWID, with sentences running concurrently.
On March 30, 2009, the Philadelphia Daily News published a article alleging Officer Cujdik misconduct in another case involving the same informant.
Appellee moved for a new trial on the basis of after-discovered evidence solely from the newspaper article.
Trial court denied the motion; Superior Court initially vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing; en banc, the Superior Court again vacated and remanded after lengthy discussion of Castro and Estepp precedents.
The Commonwealth sought Supreme Court review to determine if a newspaper article can support after-discovered evidence relief; the issue centers on the evidentiary sufficiency and pleading requirements of Rule 720.
The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court, holding the article itself is not evidence and that the motion must identify actual evidence to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can a newspaper article alone support an after-discovered evidence hearing?	Castro argued article is not evidence; no producible proof.	Castro claimed article could describe potential evidence to be offered at hearing.	No; article alone cannot be evidence to warrant a hearing; motion must identify producible evidence.
What is the governing standard to determine whether a hearing should be held on after-discovered evidence?	Castro contends article may describe necessary evidence; standard should focus on potential admissible proof.	Commonwealth argued strict evidentiary proof is required with affidavit-like offers.	A hearing requires a threshold proffer describing actual evidence to be offered; mere allegations are insufficient.
Must a Rule 720 post-sentence motion attach affidavits or offers of proof?	Rule 720 does not require affidavits; description of potential evidence suffices.	Affidavits or offers of proof are required to establish producible evidence.	Affidavits are not strictly required, but the motion must describe the actual evidence to be presented at the hearing.
Did the Superior Court wrongly treat a newspaper article as if it contained evidence?	The article could indicate potential corroborating facts or witnesses.	Newspaper content is not evidence and cannot support after-discovered evidence relief.	Yes; newspaper articles are not evidence; the motion must articulate producible evidence to warrant a hearing.

Commonwealth v. Pagan, 597 Pa. 69 (Pa. 2008) (four-prong test for after-discovered evidence)
Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 604 Pa. 386 (Pa. 2009) (producible and admissible standard guidance)
Commonwealth v. Randolph, 582 Pa. 576 (Pa. 2005) (four-prong framework for post-trial relief)
Commonwealth v. Brosnick, 530 Pa. 158 (Pa. 1992) (pleading standards for after-discovered evidence; absence of end-product evidence)
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 939 A.2d 355 (Pa. Super. 2007) (article-based after-discovered evidence analysis in Rivera context)
Commonwealth v. Castro, 55 A.3d 1242 (Pa. Super. 2012 (en banc)) (rejected Estepp distinction; article can provide basis for hearing if evidence exists)
Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2011) (distinction between arrest and investigation in assessing after-discovered evidence)
Commonwealth v. Ngow, 539 Pa. 294 (Pa. 1995) (newspaper articles generally do not constitute evidence)
Presbyterian SeniorCare, 900 A.2d 967 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (newspaper articles as double hearsay)