In the Interest of J.B., Appeal of: Comm
106 A.3d 76
| Pa. | 2014Background
- In February 2009 an adult woman (victim) was found shot dead in her home; her unborn child also died. A .20‑gauge shotgun was recovered from the juvenile J.B.’s bedroom and spent .20‑gauge shells were found on the property. Forensic testing found two gunshot‑residue particles on J.B.’s clothing but no blood or DNA on the weapon or shells; no GSR testing of J.B.’s hands was done.
- J.B., age 11, was charged and adjudicated delinquent for first‑degree murder and homicide of an unborn child in juvenile court; he was committed to a secure residential facility. He did not file a post‑dispositional motion.
- On appeal J.B. argued his adjudication was against the weight of the evidence (listing several evidentiary points). He raised that claim in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; the juvenile court addressed it in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
- The Superior Court vacated the dispositional order and remanded for further proceedings because it found key juvenile‑court factual findings (absence of other footprints/tire tracks and no one approaching the house) unsupported by the record; it did not resolve the remaining weight‑of‑evidence questions.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to decide whether J.B. waived his weight claim (and whether a closing argument can substitute for a post‑dispositional motion), and whether the record supported the juvenile court’s factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (J.B.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether J.B. waived his weight‑of‑evidence claim by not filing a post‑dispositional motion | Waiver applies under In re R.N.; post‑dispositional motion is required to preserve weight claims; In re D.S. does not control because it dealt with sufficiency not weight | Pa.R.J.C.P. 620 makes post‑dispositional motions optional; Widmer and In re D.S. principles support treating weight claims raised in a 1925(b) statement and addressed by the trial court as preserved | Majority: Not waived — following Widmer logic, when a juvenile raises the weight claim in a 1925(b) statement and the juvenile court addresses it in a 1925(a) opinion, appellate waiver is inappropriate; remand to permit nunc pro tunc post‑dispositional motion |
| 2) Whether a closing argument can preserve a post‑adjudication weight claim | Closing argument is not a substitute for a post‑dispositional motion; weight claims presume a final adjudication and must be presented after adjudication | J.B. relied on having raised the arguments during closing and in other proceedings | Held: Closing argument cannot preserve a weight claim — weight challenges require the juvenile court to rule in the first instance after adjudication |
| 3) Whether the record supports juvenile court findings (no one else approached/entered) and whether adjudication shocks the conscience | Commonwealth argued juvenile court findings were supported and critical to the adjudication | J.B. argued record lacks support for those factual findings and that timeline/evidence show insufficient opportunity to commit the crime | Majority: Because the Superior Court correctly identified that key juvenile‑court factual findings lacked record support, the Superior Court’s order was vacated and the case remanded so J.B. can file a nunc pro tunc post‑dispositional motion; the majority did not resolve the ultimate weight‑of‑evidence merits on this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997) (holding a weight‑of‑evidence claim raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement and addressed by the trial court should not be deemed waived and remanding to allow nunc pro tunc motion)
- In re D.S., 39 A.3d 968 (Pa. 2012) (recognized that juvenile waiver rules differ and that optional post‑dispositional motions cannot be used to bar review of certain claims)
- In re R.N., 951 A.2d 363 (Pa. Super. 2008) (earlier Superior Court precedent requiring presentation of issues to juvenile court to avoid waiver; discussed and limited by later authority)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (articulating the standard for appellate review of a trial court’s weight‑of‑the‑evidence ruling)
Outcome: Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court order and remanded to the juvenile court to permit J.B. to file a motion for a new adjudication hearing nunc pro tunc to challenge the weight of the evidence; the Court held weight claims cannot be preserved by closing argument but may be preserved where raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement and addressed by the juvenile court.