Commonwealth v. Melvin
103 A.3d 1
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Orie, secretary in her sister’s courtroom, was convicted of two theft of services counts, conspiracy, misapplication of entrusted property, tampering/fabricating evidence, and solicitation to tamper with/fabricate evidence arising from conduct in 2003–2009 campaigns.
- She was retried after a sua sponte mistrial declared during a co-defendant’s trial involving forged documents impeaching a key witness.
- The court accrued concurrent county intermediate punishment for CC201115981 and no additional penalty for CC201010286, but added an unrecorded sentence requiring apology letters.
- Orie challenged the mistrial as double jeopardy and challenged joining the trials; she also challenged the accomplice-liability instruction and the oral-only apology-letter condition.
- The written sentencing order did not mention apology letters, and the court did not amend the written sentence to include that condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mistrial was manifestly necessary to allow a fair trial | Orie argues no manifest necessity; mistrial harmed her. | Orie contends mistrial was coerced and prejudicial; alternatives unconsidered. | Mistrial declared with manifest necessity; retrial permissible. |
| Whether retrial on CC201010286 violated double jeopardy | Double jeopardy protections were triggered by mistrial. | Retrial allowed under Pennsylvania/federal standards due to manifest necessity. | No double jeopardy bar; retrial permissible. |
| Whether consolidation of CC201010286 and CC201115981 prejudiced Orie | Joinder harmed defense. | Joinder proper under Rule 582; no prejudice shown. | Issue waived/Not preserved; no reversal on prejudice. |
| Whether trial court erred by instructing accomplice liability after closing arguments | No prejudice; error harmless. | Rule 647(A) violation; prejudicial to defense. | Rule 647(A) violated; but no reversible prejudice shown. |
| Whether the apology-letter requirement was part of the written sentence | Apology condition absent from signed written sentence. | Orie should be bound by oral sentencing. | Written sentence controls; apology condition not enforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hoovler, 880 A.2d 1258 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for manifest necessity to declare mistrial; retrial allowed if manifest necessity)
- Commonwealth v. Diehl, 615 A.2d 690 (Pa. 1992) (mistrial standards and necessity analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Leister, 712 A.2d 332 (Pa. Super. 1998) (trial court best positioned to determine necessity; strong factors favor defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 390 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 1978) (forbidden to allow forged evidence; supports mistrial necessity)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 448 Pa. 177, 292 A.2d 373 (Pa. 1972) (mug-shot evidence analogyjustify mistrial to protect fairness)
- Commonwealth v. Hendricks, 546 A.2d 79 (Pa. Super. 1988) (pre-amendment Rule 30/647 context; pre-close instruction rulings must be made before closing arguments)
- Commonwealth v. Alston, 748 A.2d 677 (Pa. Super. 2000) (prejudice required for Rule 647 relief; not automatically reversible)
- In re United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579 (1824) (manifest necessity/ends of justice standard for mistrial)
- Commonwealth v. Isabell, 467 A.2d 1287 (Pa. 1983) (written sentence controls over oral pronouncements)