Commonwealth v. Garzone
34 A.3d 67
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Appellees are Philadelphia funeral directors who provided cadavers to Biomedical Tissue Services for resale; they and a co-owner engaged in a scheme without families’ consent, leading to numerous charges.
- The Commonwealth sought costs under 16 P.S. § 7708, including salaries of ADAs and county detectives, arguing costs should be paid by the defendant.
- The trial court initially denied, then granted, costs including prosecutorial salary hours, finding extraordinary circumstances justified in a complex case.
- The Superior Court vacated the ADA/detective salary costs, upholding only grand jury costs as recoverable.
- The Court granted review to determine whether Section 7708 allows recovery of regular prosecutorial salaries as costs, not merely extraordinary expenditures.
- The Court ultimately holds that Section 7708 does not authorize recovery of regular salaries of ADAs and detectives as costs against a convicted defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 16 P.S. § 7708 permits recovery of prosecutorial salaries as costs. | Commonwealth: salaries are recoverable as necessary prosecution costs under §7708. | Garzone: salaries are not 'expenses' recoverable under §7708 and are regular county payrolls, not extraordinary costs. | No; §7708 does not authorize recovery of regular prosecutorial salaries as costs. |
| Does the plain language or pari materia analysis support broad reading of §7708 to include salaries? | Commonwealth advocates broad reading to include all necessary prosecution expenses. | Garzone favors narrow reading; salaries are not explicitly included and pari materia suggests distinct treatment of salaries. | Statutory language favored a narrow construction; salaries not recoverable. |
| Is the decision consistent with the American Rule and restitution principles? | Commonwealth argues exceptions to the American Rule and restitution rationales support recovery. | Appellees: American Rule and restitution are distinct; salaries are not recoverable costs nor proper restitution. | American Rule and restitution principles support not recovering regular salaries as costs. |
| Should policy considerations about costs of crime affect §7708 interpretation? | Commonwealth: shifting costs to criminals serves public finance and deterrence. | Appellees: policy cannot override clear statutory text; avoid post hoc revenue shifting. | Policy considerations do not override the narrow statutory interpretation; not recoverable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Garzone, 607 Pa. 324, 6 A.3d 499 (2010) (primary case interpreting §7708 for first-class counties; salaries not recoverable as costs)
- Commonwealth v. Harner, 533 Pa. 14, 617 A.2d 702 (1992) (restitution in probation context; costs as separate concept)
- Commonwealth v. Davy, 317 A.2d 48 (Pa. 1974) (costs of extradition; broad view of costs in criminal prosecutions)
- Commonwealth v. duPont, 730 A.2d 970 (Pa. Super. 1999) (prosecution expenses may be allowed in extraordinary circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Cutillo, 294 Pa. Super. 560, 440 A.2d 607 (1982) (costs for related services; early authority on recoverable costs)
- Mosaica Academy Charter School v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Educ., 572 Pa. 191, 813 A.2d 813 (2002) (limits on attorney’s fees under Declaratory Judgments Act; distinguishes fees from costs)
- Commonwealth v. Coder, 490 Pa. 194, 415 A.2d 406 (1980) (precedent on costs in transferring venues; expenses vs. salaries)