Commonwealth v. Safka, 141 A.3d 1239

Appellant Ryan Safka crashed his car on I‑376, killing three passengers; Trooper Kern investigated and estimated speed ~67 mph from reconstruction and downloaded Event Data Recorder (EDR) speed data showing 106→70 mph in the five seconds before airbag deployment.
Safka waived a jury and proceeded to a bench trial on vehicular homicide and related counts; the Commonwealth disclosed EDR data in discovery but did not present foundational EDR expert testimony during its case‑in‑chief.
Defense counsel raised an oral motion in limine at trial challenging the EDR’s reliability (no pretrial Frye motion); the trial court admitted the EDR evidence but reserved assessment of its weight and admissibility.
After closing, the court expressed concern it lacked sufficient foundational information about how EDRs record and therefore sua sponte reopened the record to allow both sides to present expert testimony on EDR reliability.
The Commonwealth presented an EDR expert (Richard Ruth); following that supplemental testimony the court found the EDR generally reliable, convicted Safka, and the Superior Court affirmed.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sua sponte reopening the record in a non‑jury trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice, so long as no party was prejudiced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Safka)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether a trial court in a bench criminal trial may sua sponte reopen the evidentiary record after the parties have rested to receive additional evidence on admissibility/weight (EDR reliability)	Trial court lacked authority to reopen sua sponte; the Commonwealth had burden to present foundational proof during its case‑in‑chief and reopening gave the prosecution an improper second chance — conviction should be vacated	Rules of Evidence and precedent allow broad trial‑court control over taking evidence; oral mid‑trial challenge left the court without time — reopening to allow both sides to supplement was within discretion and avoided miscarriage of justice	Trial courts in non‑jury trials have inherent discretion to reopen the record sua sponte before final judgment to allow supplementation on a specific issue (e.g., admissibility/weight), provided no prejudice; no abuse of discretion here

Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 58 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2012) (trial court may reopen to prevent miscarriage of justice; multi‑factor considerations)
Commonwealth v. Tharp, 575 A.2d 557 (Pa. 1990) (trial court may permit Commonwealth to reopen to meet demurrer)
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 685 A.2d 96 (Pa. 1996) (no abuse where court allowed recall to correct testimony)
Grady v. Frito‑Lay, Inc., 839 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 2003) (Frye/Pa.R.E. 702 principles on novel scientific evidence)
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (general‑acceptance test for novel scientific evidence)
Williams v. Illinois, 132 S.Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (deference to bench factfinder’s handling of evidentiary matters)