Commonwealth v. Goldman
70 A.3d 874
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- May 25, 2011: police find two men (Goldman, Leonard) fleeing an apartment roof; officers recover two handguns and ammunition; both detained and unable to post bail.
- Complaints filed May 25, 2011; arraignments June 30, 2011; cases consolidated and multiple continuances set through December 2011.
- On December 7, 2011 the Commonwealth was unprepared because police witnesses had not been subpoenaed due to a liaison communication breakdown; the judge offered the Commonwealth a choice: nolle prosequi or dismissal; Commonwealth filed nolle prosequi and defendants were released after 196 days in custody.
- Commonwealth moved to vacate the nolle prosequis on December 16, 2011; Judge Patrick denied the motions (entered Feb. 14, 2012); Commonwealth appealed.
- Trial court treated the Commonwealth’s attempt to reinstate charges as impermissible under Rule 600 and effectively terminated prosecution with prejudice; the Superior Court reverses and remands, directing the trial court to lift the nolle prosequis and reinstate the complaints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Commonwealth's motion to vacate nolle prosequi and thereby terminating prosecutions with prejudice | Commonwealth: Meadius inapplicable; mechanical Rule 600 run date (365 days) had not passed; vacatur proper and charges may be reinstated | Defendants: Court properly denied vacatur because Commonwealth lacked due diligence and sought to reset Rule 600 run date (Meadius) | Court: Reversed — Meadius inapplicable; run date not passed; denying vacatur and effectively dismissing with prejudice was abuse of discretion |
| Whether Rule 600 required dismissal because defendants exceeded 180 days pretrial incarceration | Commonwealth: Remedy for >180 days is release on nominal bail under Rule 600(E), not dismissal | Defendants: Delay showed lack of diligence, supporting dismissal | Court: Dismissal was not required because the 365‑day mechanical run date had not elapsed; relief for >180 days is nominal release, not automatic dismissal |
| Whether the Commonwealth’s conduct amounted to blatant prosecutorial misconduct justifying dismissal | Commonwealth: delay was due to liaison communication breakdown, not intentional or blatant misconduct | Defendants: failure to subpoena witnesses reflects prosecutorial negligence warranting dismissal | Court: No blatant misconduct or demonstrable prejudice; communication breakdown insufficient to justify dismissal |
| Whether Meadius bars reinstatement of charges after nolle prosequi | Commonwealth: Meadius governs re‑filings only when withdrawal/re‑filing seeks to evade Rule 600 and when run date passed | Defendants: Trial court relied on Meadius to deny vacatur | Court: Meadius inapplicable here because it addressed situations where run date already violated; does not compel denial of vacatur when mechanical run date remains open |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 359 A.2d 174 (Pa. 1976) (defines nolle prosequi as voluntary prosecutorial withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Ahearn, 670 A.2d 133 (Pa. 1996) (nolle prosequi may be lifted at any time to revive charges)
- Commonwealth v. Meadius, 870 A.2d 802 (Pa. 2005) (Rule 600 run date from refiling applies only when withdrawal/refiling due to factors beyond prosecutor's control and not to evade Rule 600)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 879 A.2d 309 (Pa. Super. 2005) (clarifies dismissal under Rule 600 occurs only when trial not commenced within adjusted run date)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Burke, 781 A.2d 1136 (Pa. 2000) (dismissal is an extreme sanction reserved for blatant prosecutorial misconduct)
- Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 712 A.2d 749 (Pa. 1998) (public interest disfavors dismissal except for egregious prosecution conduct)