Commonwealth v. Orie
33 A.3d 17
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Orie sought pre-trial review of a trial court order denying her double jeopardy motion to bar retrial with prejudice.
- The Supreme Court remanded to consider whether the trial court erred in finding the motion frivolous.
- Trial proceeded in Allegheny County; during deliberations a mistrial was declared after forged defense exhibits were identified.
- The trial court held the double jeopardy claim frivolous, noting the forged documents were material and that other remedies had been considered.
- On remand, the Superior Court and this Court reaffirmed the frivolousness finding, concluding Orie caused the mistrial and cannot bar retrial.
- The overall decision on remand was that Orie’s motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds was frivolous and the retrial may proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in labeling the double jeopardy claim frivolous. | Orie contends the claim is colorable and not frivolous. | Commonwealth argues the claim is frivolous because forged documents were central, controlled by defense, and the mistrial was necessary. | Frivolous; affirm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gains, 383 Pa.Super. 208 (Pa. Super. 1989) (frivolous double jeopardy claims must be identified by trial court via written finding)
- Commonwealth v. Brady, 510 Pa. 336 (Pa. 1986) (interlocutory appeals for frivolous double jeopardy claims are unwarranted)
- Commonwealth v. Bolden, 472 Pa. 602 (Pa. 1977) (frames burden to review under Brady/Bolden for preliminary resolution)