Commonwealth v. Minnis
83 A.3d 1047
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Minnis was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with his girlfriend’s minor daughter, TK, who was 8–11 during the assaults, with Henderson diagnosing vaginal and rectal injuries.
- Post-sentence motions followed in 2008; Minnis received an aggregate sentence of 192–304 months and was designated a sexually violent predator.
- In 2010 Minnis filed a PCRA petition seeking dismissal or a new trial; the court granted relief in the form of a new trial and ordered further proceedings.
- Discovery occurred regarding Henderson’s reliability; Minnis claimed prosecutorial misconduct related to Henderson’s testimony and sought double jeopardy relief.
- The trial court, applying Commonwealth v. Constant, held Minnis waived double jeopardy by seeking a new trial; this opinion overrules Constant and remands for further proceedings.
- This opinion clarifies that the double jeopardy defense depends on the nature of prosecutorial misconduct and permits relief beyond the procedural route to a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Minnis waive double jeopardy by seeking a new trial? | Minnis argues waiver not automatic after new trial. | Commonwealth relies on Constant to assert waiver upon new trial. | Constant overruled; no automatic waiver. |
| Is Constant binding authority on waiver of double jeopardy after a new trial? | Constant should control waiver analysis. | Constant is correct for its context. | Constant overruled; not binding. |
| What standard governs prosecutorial misconduct in double jeopardy claims? | Martorano framework governs whether misconduct bars retrial. | Prosecutorial misconduct may warrant a new trial without bar to retrial. | Standard grounded in Martorano and Potter; remand for factual determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Constant, 925 A.2d 810 (Pa. Super. 2007) (new trial does not automatically waive double jeopardy)
- Commonwealth v. Martorano, 741 A.2d 1221 (Pa. 1999) (Pennsylvania double jeopardy protection extends beyond mistrial intent)
- Potter v. Commonwealth, 386 A.2d 918 (Pa. 1978) (avoidance of prejudice; not to depend on procedural distinctions)
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (prosecutor cannot provoke a mistrial for a more favorable retrial)
- Commonwealth v. Starks, 416 A.2d 498 (Pa. 1980) (two-part prosecutorial misconduct analysis under PA constitution)
- Commonwealth v. Myers, 422 Pa. 187 (Pa. 1966) (federal double jeopardy predated state application; misconduct context)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 292 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1972) (new trial due to expert misconduct; earlier reliance on different standards)
- Commonwealth v. Melton, 406 Pa. 343 (Pa. 1962) (historical rule on double jeopardy and new trials)
- Commonwealth v. Kunish, 602 A.2d 849 (Pa. 1992) (finality of sentence when subject to appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Postell, 706 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 1998) (finality principles in double jeopardy context)
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (U.S. Supreme Court 1969) (fifth amendment double jeopardy applied to states)