Commonwealth v. Scarborough
619 Pa. 353
| Pa. | 2013Background
- Appellee Scarborough convicted of burglary, robbery, theft, conspiracy, and three murders; sentenced 30–60 years.
- DNA testing motion under PCRA §9543.1 granted by trial court; testing ordered on palm print, fingernails, blood print.
- Commonwealth appealed the DNA testing order; Superior Court quashed as interlocutory and non-final.
- Judge Dalton conducted hearing; found testing would potentially affect case and exculpatory value relevant to innocence.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted direct review to determine if DNA testing order is a final, immediately appealable order.
- The court must decide whether such an order is final under Pa.R.A.P. 341 and whether 910 governs finality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a DNA testing order under 9543.1 a final, immediately appealable order? | Commonwealth: order is final under Rule 341; akin to Romolini. | Scarborough: order is not final; testing is interim, linked to later PCRA. | Yes; the order is final and appealable under Rule 341(b). |
| Which rule governs finality for a DNA testing order, Rule 341 or Rule 910? | Commonwealth: Rule 910 applies to PCRA petitions; testing is final. | Scarborough: finality arises under Rule 341, not Rule 910. | Rule 341 governs finality for the DNA testing order. |
| Does the DNA testing order terminate the litigation or merely precede PCRA relief? | Commonwealth: testing ends the motion; permits immediate review. | Scarborough: testing is a distinct step; continued PCRA proceedings may follow. | The DNA testing order terminates the testing litigation; subsequent PCRA petitions are separate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Romolini, 384 Pa. Super. 117 (Pa. Super. 1989) (parole order final and appealable under Rule 341)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 566 Pa. 307 (Pa. 2001) (PCRA order final and immediately appealable under Rule 341)
- Commonwealth v. White, 589 Pa. 642 (Pa. 2006) (finality and appellate review standards for criminal matters)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2011) (DNA testing under 9543.1 not a PCRA petition; timing matters)
- Commonwealth v. Porter, 613 Pa. 510 (Pa. 2012) (recognizes PCRA claims as rights to relief; separate proceedings)
- Geniviva v. Frisk, 555 Pa. 589 (Pa. 1999) (collateral-order review factors; public policy considerations)
- Vaccone v. Syken, 587 Pa. 380 (Pa. 2006) (interlocutory review pathways preserved; jurisdictional questions)
- Fried v. Fried, 509 Pa. 89 (Pa. 1985) (jurisdiction overruling on appealability questions)
- Barvin v. Smith, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 2013) (illustrative example)