Commonwealth v. Moto
23 A.3d 989
| Pa. | 2011Background
- In 1987, Appellee was convicted by jury of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, robbery, and conspiracy, with a 12 to 24 year sentence.
- L.Y. identified Appellee as one of two assailants from a December 1985 rape/robbery; a composite sketch based on her description was shown to the jury.
- Post-conviction DNA testing in 1992 revealed DNA from three men not including Appellee, leading to vacatur of convictions and a retrial being granted by the PCRA court in 1995.
- In 1996 the Commonwealth nolle prosequied the case due to inability to locate the victim, who had moved away; no retrial occurred.
- Appellee filed a 2007 expungement petition seeking removal of all arrest, trial, conviction, and sentence records related to the L.Y. offenses.
- At the expungement hearing in 2008, the Commonwealth presented testimony supporting the strength of the original case and DNA non-exoneration; Appellee presented limited evidence, including a private investigator’s records of L.Y.’s addresses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Wexler balancing properly applied? | Trial court properly weighed the Wexler factors with emphasis on the Commonwealth’s case strength. | Superior Court erred by excluding consideration of all Wexler factors and misapplying the standard. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; Superior Court erred in reversal. |
| May evidence from the 1987 trial be used to assess the Commonwealth’s current case weight? | Evidence from the 1987 trial remains relevant to the balancing since the case led to conviction and later DNA testing. | Post-new-trial innocence presumption invalidates using 1987 trial evidence to weigh current case strength. | Yes, it was appropriate to consider 1987 trial evidence in expungement weighing. |
| Does DNA testing exonerate Appellee for purposes of expungement? | DNA results could not exonerate; thus do not mandate expungement. | DNA evidence undermines the Commonwealth’s certainty and supports expungement. | DNA did not exonerate; not dispositive against expungement; weighing depended on all facts. |
| Did the Superior Court err in reversing without addressing the trial court’s reasoning? | Superior Court misinterpreted the trial court’s explanation and abused its discretion. | Superior Court correctly evaluated record and protected statutory rights. | Superior Court erred; trial court’s denial was supported by proper application of Wexler. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wexler, 431 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1981) (balancing test for expungement; burden on Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 434 A.2d 1205 (Pa. 1981) (ARD and policy of fresh start supports expungement)
- Commonwealth v. D.M., 695 A.2d 770 (Pa. 1997) (automatic expungement of arrest record upon acquittal)
- Commonwealth v. Malone, 366 A.2d 584 (Pa. Super. 1976) (expungement as adjunct to due process before CHRIA)
- Commonwealth v. Iacino, 411 A.2d 754 (Pa. Super. 1979) (non-exhaustive factors guiding expungement balancing)
- Commonwealth v. Persia, 678 A.2d 969 (Pa. Super. 1996) (nolle prossed cases and expungement considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Bailey, 419 A.2d 1351 (Pa. Super. 1980) (expungement hearing is civil in nature with its own standards)