Commonwealth v. Taylor
120 A.3d 1017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Jerry Taylor was charged after a Feb. 18, 2013 shooting with multiple offenses including attempted murder, aggravated assault, PIC, §§ 6106/6108 (possessing/carrying firearms), and a separate § 6105 (persons not to possess firearms) count.
- The court severed the § 6105 charge (which depends on a prior conviction) for separate trial; Taylor acquitted by jury on the non-§ 6105 charges on Nov. 22, 2013.
- The § 6105 count remained pending; Taylor elected a jury trial for that count and the court set a new date. Taylor moved pretrial to dismiss the § 6105 count on double jeopardy / collateral estoppel grounds, arguing the earlier acquittals on possessory counts foreclosed prosecution under § 6105 for the same conduct.
- The trial court denied the motion on Jan. 27, 2014, but did not make the Rule 587(B)-required on-the-record findings of fact, legal conclusions, or a specific frivolousness finding.
- The Commonwealth表示 it did not intend to prosecute the § 6105 count tied to the Feb. 18 shooting, and had not yet charged for a firearm recovered March 1, 2013; the trial court found Taylor suffered no prejudice from a bill-of-information date defect.
- The Superior Court concluded it could not determine collateral-order appealability because the trial court failed to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B) and remanded for the trial court to make the required on‑the‑record findings and a supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Taylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecution on severed § 6105 charge is barred by double jeopardy/collateral estoppel after jury acquittals on related possessory counts | The Commonwealth did not concede bar and intended to proceed (or had alternative bases); severance was proper so jeopardy did not attach to § 6105 | Taylor argued prior acquittals on possessory offenses established he did not possess a firearm and thus § 6105 prosecution is barred by double jeopardy/collateral estoppel | Court did not decide merits; remanded because trial court failed to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B) requirements before denial, so appellate jurisdiction unresolved |
| Whether the Commonwealth may prosecute § 6105 based on a firearm recovered March 1, 2013 though bill of information listed only Feb. 18, 2013 | Commonwealth argued Taylor knew of the March 1 firearm and was not prejudiced; charge could proceed | Taylor contended the bill of information included only one date, so Commonwealth cannot rely on March 1 conduct for the § 6105 count | Trial court found Taylor was aware and not prejudiced; Superior Court did not rule on correctness, remanded for Rule 587(B) compliance |
| Whether same jury that acquitted on severed counts should have decided the § 6105 charge | Commonwealth maintained severance appropriate and separate trial permissible | Taylor claimed court erred by dismissing jury before resolving § 6105 so same jury should have tried remaining charge | Trial court rejected Taylor’s claim; Superior Court did not reach substantive review and remanded for proper Rule 587(B) findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Vargas, 947 A.2d 777 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for double jeopardy questions)
- Commonwealth v. Allburn, 721 A.2d 363 (Pa. Super. 1998) (jurisdictional issues may be raised sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Brady, 508 A.2d 286 (Pa. 1986) (orders denying double jeopardy dismissals are collateral orders unless motion found frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Orie, 22 A.3d 1021 (Pa. 2011) (affirming collateral‑order framework for double jeopardy dismissal denials)
- Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 876 A.2d 939 (Pa. 2005) (de novo review of appellate jurisdiction questions)