Commonwealth v. Scarborough
9 A.3d 206
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- Scarborough convicted in 1977 of three murders and related offenses, sentenced to 30–60 years.
- In 2008, Scarborough moved for DNA testing on certain evidence from the original prosecution, funded by him.
- The trial court granted the DNA testing after hearing expert testimony and arguments.
- Commonwealth appealing contends the proper legal standard requires showing that favorable results establish actual innocence, not merely that testing would call into question the Commonwealth’s case.
- The court below did not characterize the testing order as final, but the Commonwealth argued it was final collateral relief; issue is whether the order is appealable.
- The DNA testing order is a step toward PCRA relief, and does not itself dispose of all issues or terminate the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the DNA testing order appealable as final, interlocutory, or collateral? | Commonwealth asserts the order is final or appealable as collateral. | Scarborough contends the order is not final, not collateral, and not an appealable interlocutory order. | The order is not final, collateral, or appealable. |
| Does the lack of an explicit permissive-interlocutory certification deny appellate jurisdiction? | Commonwealth could have sought permissive interlocutory appeal; certification not properly sought. | No certification means no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. | There is no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. |
| Does DNA testing under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543.1 timing affect appealability or timeliness? | Testing could occur now and later support a PCRA claim; no time limit on testing itself. | Timeliness concerns apply to PCRA petitions based on test results. | Testing itself has no deadline; timeliness applies to any resulting PCRA petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 583 Pa. 208, 876 A.2d 939 (Pa. 2005) (appealability standards for collateral or interlocutory orders)
- In re Estate of Allen, 960 A.2d 470 (Pa. Super. 2008) (definition of appealability under Pennsylvania rules)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 566 Pa. 307, 780 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2001) (PCRA final order and timing considerations)
- Hoover v. Welsh, 419 Pa.Super. 102, 615 A.2d 45 (Pa. Super. 1992) (requirements for permissive interlocutory appeal certification)
- Commonwealth v. Yingling, 911 A.2d 572 (Pa. Super. 2006) (jurisdictional certification prerequisites for interlocutory appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Makara, 980 A.2d 138 (Pa. Super. 2009) (discovery orders and collateral-order analysis)
- Brooks, 875 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Super. 2005) (timeliness and testing under §9543.1 and PCRA filings)