Commonwealth v. Ricker
120 A.3d 349
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Troopers responded to a report of dangerous driving and were directed to David Ricker’s property as the suspected vehicle owner.
- Trooper Trotta approached Ricker’s gated driveway in uniform in an unmarked car; Ricker became belligerent, was bloodshot and smelled of alcohol, and displayed a handgun and later an assault rifle.
- Trotta called for backup; a confrontation ensued in an open garage bay during which Trotta fired and hit Ricker, who then returned fire and wounded Trooper Trotta.
- At the preliminary hearing the Commonwealth presented the investigating officer’s testimony and a recorded interview of Trooper Trotta (hearsay); Troopers Trotta and Gingerich did not testify.
- The magisterial district court bound Ricker over for trial; Ricker filed a pretrial writ of habeas corpus arguing that hearsay alone cannot establish a prima facie case and that Pa.R.Crim.P. 542(E) (allowing hearsay to establish any element) violates confrontation rights.
- The trial court denied the writ without a hearing; the Superior Court accepted interlocutory review under an "exceptional circumstances" rationale and considered the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this interlocutory appeal is reviewable | Exceptional circumstances exist because the hearsay-vs-confrontation issue likely will evade review and raises significant constitutional concerns | No exceptional circumstances; Appellant can raise confrontation issues at trial and seek review later or seek permission to appeal | Court found exceptional circumstances and exercised jurisdiction |
| Whether hearsay alone may establish a prima facie case at a preliminary hearing | Rule 542(E) cannot make hearsay alone sufficient; precedent (Tyler, Carmody, Verbonitz plurality) prohibits sole-hearsay bind-overs | Rule 542(E) explicitly permits hearsay to establish any element; Commonwealth also argued non-hearsay evidence existed | Court concluded in this case the prima facie finding rested solely on hearsay (Trotta’s taped statement) and that Rule 542(E) does permit hearsay alone to establish a prima facie case |
| Whether Pa.R.Crim.P. 542(E) violates the federal and state confrontation clauses | Rule 542(E) and bind-over on hearsay alone violate confrontation rights because defendant could not cross-examine Trotta | Confrontation is a trial right; preliminary hearings are not constitutionally required to provide full confrontation; rule is presumptively constitutional and consistent with precedent | Court held no federal or state constitutional right to confront witnesses at preliminary hearing; Rule 542(E) does not violate confrontation clauses |
| Whether defendant’s complaint about not being allowed to subpoena Troopers for preliminary hearing was preserved | Appellant argued the district court should have continued to allow him to call Trotta and Gingerich | Commonwealth noted Appellant did not properly preserve/develop the argument | Issue was waived for lack of development and omission from Rule 1925(b) statement |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hess, 414 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 1980) (general rule that denial of pretrial habeas for insufficient prima facie evidence is not appealable; interlocutory review only in exceptional circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Carmody, 799 A.2d 143 (Pa. Super. 2002) (preliminary-hearing hearsay admissible but noted in dicta that hearsay alone may be inadequate to establish prima facie case)
- Commonwealth v. Tyler, 587 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 1991) (rejected confrontation claim at preliminary hearing; held non-hearsay evidence supported bind-over)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Buchanan v. Verbonitz, 581 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1990) (plurality: preliminary hearing cannot be based solely on inadmissible hearsay; some justices grounded ruling on confrontation, others on due process)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (Fourth Amendment requires judicial determination of probable cause for extended pretrial restraint; dicta suggests confrontation may be appropriate where a full preliminary hearing is used)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (plurality view referenced: confrontation is primarily a trial right)