Commonwealth v. Frey
41 A.3d 605
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Frey was convicted in 2003 for the murder of Hopethan Johnson; the Superior Court affirmed the judgment.
- Johnson's skeletal remains were discovered in 2008 and identified by DNA in 2010, influencing post-conviction claims.
- Frey filed a counseled PCRA petition in July 2010, with a supplemental claim in October 2010 alleging after-discovered evidence related to Farmer's death.
- In March 2011, Frey sought discovery of Stacey Farmer's homicide investigation materials to explore a possible common shooter.
- The PCRA court granted discovery of the Farmer file; the Commonwealth appealed contending the court erred.
- The issue on appeal included collateral-order status, timeliness of the PCRA petition, and whether the discovery order was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the discovery order a collateral, appealable order? | Commonwealth argues it is not collateral. | Frey contends the order is collateral and thus appealable. | Yes; the order is collateral and appealable. |
| Was Frey's PCRA petition timely under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545? | Commonwealth argues the petition was untimely. | Frey contends the time-of-filing exception under § 9545(b)(1)(ii) and (2) applies. | Petition timely under the statutory exception. |
| Did the PCRA court abuse its discretion in ordering discovery? | Commonwealth contends the asking for discovery of Farmer materials was improper. | Frey contends exceptional circumstances warranted discovery to test claims of a common shooter. | No abuse of discretion; exceptional circumstances supported discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 9 A.3d 206 (Pa. Super. 2010) (collateral-order appealability framework in discovery contexts)
- Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 900 A.2d 407 (Pa. Super. 2006) (definition of exceptional circumstances for PCRA discovery)
- Commonwealth v. Hanible, 30 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2011) (good cause standard for discovery under PCRA; rejection of conjectural claims)
- Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (timeliness and good cause distinctions in PCRA discovery and exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 957 A.2d 237 (Pa. 2008) (PCRA discovery not satisfied by speculative exculpatory claims)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 732 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1999) (historical interpretation of discovery rules (predecessor rules))