In the Interest of L.J.
622 Pa. 126
| Pa. | 2013Background
- Juvenile appellant (L.J.) charged with possession and possession with intent to deliver; moved to suppress evidence seized from her purse after police surveillance and a stop.
- Suppression hearing featured testimony from surveillance Officer Hunter, who did not witness the actual seizure; the arresting/seizing officer (Jackson) did not testify at suppression.
- Trial proceeded immediately; Officer Jackson testified at trial that L.J. consented to a purse search and opened the purse, revealing crack cocaine. Defense cross-examination on consent was largely curtailed as the suppression phase had concluded.
- Juvenile court denied suppression based on Hunter’s surveillance testimony and later relied on Jackson’s trial testimony to deem probable cause/consent dispositive.
- Superior Court affirmed, citing a Chacko footnote that permitted considering trial testimony in reviewing suppression rulings; Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted review.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated and remanded for a new suppression hearing, holding that appellate review of suppression denials is generally confined to the suppression record unless trial evidence was previously unavailable and properly introduced to reopen the suppression record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate/superior courts may consider trial testimony when reviewing a pretrial suppression ruling | Commonwealth: Chacko footnote permits review of all testimony (suppression + trial) to determine admissibility | L.J.: Review should be limited to suppression record; trial testimony used to uphold suppression denied defendant opportunity to challenge evidence | Court: Chacko footnote was non-binding dicta; reviewing courts generally confined to suppression record unless evidence at trial was previously unavailable and properly reopened the suppression hearing |
| Whether Chacko footnote is binding precedent | Commonwealth: Chacko is binding and consistent with Carroll and other courts | L.J.: Chacko was dicta and not necessary to Chacko’s holding | Held: Chacko footnote is dicta and not binding under stare decisis |
| Proper role of procedural rules (Pa.R.Crim.P. 581 / Pa.R.J.C.P. 350) in suppression review | Commonwealth: Rules don’t preclude using trial evidence on appeal; practicalities justify Chacko rule | L.J.: Rules require suppression to be decided pretrial and binding at trial except for evidence theretofore unavailable; defendant’s due process protected | Held: Rules intend suppression rulings to be final and based on suppression hearing record; exception only for previously unavailable evidence introduced by motion/reopening |
| Retroactivity and remedy for this case | Commonwealth: Chacko rule has been long relied on; overturning it should not disrupt cases | L.J.: Using trial evidence here was prejudicial because defendant lacked fair chance to confront consent claim | Held: New rule announced; applied prospectively to this case and future matters; remanded for new suppression hearing so parties can fully litigate suppression issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Chacko, 459 A.2d 311 (Pa. 1983) (noting in a footnote that trial testimony may be considered for suppression review—treated as dicta by the Court)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925) (discussing consideration of trial evidence in evaluating suppression/forfeiture questions)
- Commonwealth v. DeMichel, 277 A.2d 159 (Pa. 1971) (permitting reconsideration when new and different evidence emerges at trial)
- Commonwealth v. Gordon, 683 A.2d 253 (Pa. 1996) (consideration of defendant’s trial testimony relevant to privacy expectation issue)
- Commonwealth v. Monarch, 507 A.2d 74 (Pa. 1986) (discussing trial-introduced new evidence affecting suppression rulings)