Commonwealth v. Rhodes
54 A.3d 908
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellant convicted by jury of multiple sex offenses in Lancaster County; charges arise from 2001 withdrawal and 2010 re-filing.
- Pre-trial motions included Rule 600 dismissal and speedy-trial rights; court denied.
- Appellant sought funds for a psychological expert for Megan’s Law hearing; trial court denied.
- Motion in limine sought witness contact information from 2001 investigation; court denied.
- Appellant appeals, challenging Rule 600 application, Brady, expert funding, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct; judgment affirmed.
- Key procedural posture: appellate court reviews Rule 600 and speedy-trial issues, applies Barker v. Wingo factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 600 tolling/diligence supports dismissal. | Rhodes argues delay from 2001 withdrawal to 2010 filing should not toll 600. | Rhodes asserts Commonwealth diligence; delay due to factors beyond control. | Rule 600 not violated; delay excused by necessity/diligence. |
| Whether the 10-year gap violated speedy-trial rights under Barker v. Wingo. | Rhodes claims prejudice from long delay. | Delay due to traumatic testimony; no prejudice shown. | No constitutional speedy-trial violation established. |
| Whether the Commonwealth Brady violation occurred by withholding witness contact info. | Rhodes claims suppressed exculpatory witness information. | No suppression; information obtainable with reasonable diligence. | No Brady violation proven. |
| Whether Appellant was entitled to funds for a psychological expert for Megan’s Law hearing. | Curnutte requires indigent defendants to have expert funds. | Appellant not indigent; court did not abuse discretion in denial. | No abuse of discretion; no entitlement to funds. |
| Whether prosecutor misconduct entitled Rhodes to a new trial based on threats to a witness. | Prosecutor allegedly threatened a defense witness and insinuated untruthfulness. | Argument inadequate and undeveloped; waived. | Waived; not merits for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Surovcik, 933 A.2d 651 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Rule 600 diligence guides tolling analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Peterson, 19 A.3d 1131 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Withdrawal/re-filing allowed when diligence shown)
- Commonwealth v. Leak, 22 A.3d 1036 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Second complaint can trigger run date upon diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 11 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Second complaint to prevent Rule 600 delay circumvention)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (Speedy-trial analysis: length, reason, defendant, prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Willis, 46 A.3d 648 (Pa. 2012) (Brady elements: suppression, favorable, material)