Commonwealth v. Kearns, 70 A.3d 881

Commonwealth charged Kearns with attempted homicide, two counts of aggravated assault, and reckless endangerment for the June 15, 2008 incident.
Appellee’s non-jury trial began May 8, 2010 and ended in a mistrial due to discovery violations by the Commonwealth.
Discovery issues included a previously undisclosed incident report and two statements (one by a witness, one by the defendant) revealed during trial preparation.
May 6–18, 2010, the Commonwealth disclosed additional documents; defense sought a mistrial based on undisclosed material crucial to defense.
The trial court granted a mistrial, dismissed the charges, and barred retrial; the Commonwealth appealed on double jeopardy grounds.
The Superior Court reversed, holding gross negligence alone does not trigger double jeopardy bar to retrial and remanded; the decision analyzed the proper balance between prosecutorial misconduct and defendant’s right to a fair trial under Pennsylvania law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether gross negligence in withholding discovery bars retrial under double jeopardy.	Commonwealth argues lack of intent still allowed retrial; error was not intentional.	Kearns contends intentionality or purpose to deprive fair trial required to bar retrial.	No; gross negligence alone does not bar retrial; intent to prejudice necessary.
Whether Pennsylvania constitutional protections extend beyond federal double jeopardy in this context.	Commonwealth asserts no greater protection than federal standard.	Kearns relies on Smith to require intent or prejudice beyond mere error.	Pennsylvania constitution affords greater protection; safeguards depend on intentional misconduct to deny a fair trial.
What is the appropriate standard and scope of appellate review for double jeopardy determinations in this context?	Commonwealth contends de novo review of legal standards.	Kearns asks for proper application of law to trial findings.	Court applies de novo review to legal questions and deferential review to trial-fact findings that affect double jeopardy ruling.

Commonwealth v. Vargas, 947 A.2d 777 (Pa.Super.2008) (standard of review for double jeopardy questions; de novo review of law)
Commonwealth v. Wood, 803 A.2d 217 (Pa.Super.2002) (credibility/weight of evidence; standard for appellate review of factual findings)
Commonwealth v. Young, 692 A.2d 1112 (Pa.Super.1997) (weight of evidence standard; non-substitution of appellate judgment for trial court)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 532 Pa. 177, 615 A.2d 321 (1992) (Pennsylvania constitutional double jeopardy standard; greater protections than federal)
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 777 A.2d 459 (Pa.Super.2001) (prosecutorial misconduct must purposefully subvert process to bar retrial)
Commonwealth v. Martorano, 559 Pa. 533, 741 A.2d 1221 (1999) (premise that fair trial rights are primary; retrial not automatic for minor errors)
Commonwealth v. Bolden, 472 Pa. 602, 373 A.2d 90 (1977) (mistrial due to intent or gross negligence can bar reprosecution)
Commonwealth v. Simons, 514 Pa. 10, 522 A.2d 537 (1987) (reprosecution considerations under broader double jeopardy framework)
Commonwealth v. Klobuchir, 486 Pa. 241, 405 A.2d 881 (1979) (limits expansive double jeopardy review; emphasis on defendant-initiated mistrial)
Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 68 L.Ed.2d 768 (1982) (intent to provoke mistrial as prerequisite to bar retrial under federal standard)
Kennedy, see Kennedy, supra (—) (referenced for federal standard on mistrial-induced double jeopardy)