PA Supreme Court: Adult May Be Prosecuted for Decades Old Crime Committed While Juvenile

Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire - Criminal Defense Lawyer

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Armolt, holding that an adult defendant may be prosecuted in adult court for a crime he committed twenty years earlier as a juvenile. This case illustrates a serious problem with the criminal justice system. Had the defendant been prosecuted in juvenile court twenty years earlier, he likely would have received probation and some kind of treatment program. But because prosecutors did not file charges until twenty years later, he received a permanent, adult record, and the judge sentenced him to state prison. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court upheld this procedure and concluded that only the legislature could address the issue.

The Facts of Armolt

In Armolt, the defendant was convicted of sexually assaulting his step-sister while he was a minor. He, his brothers, and his mother moved in with the complainant and her father when he was a minor in the 1980s. According to the complainant, he and his brothers began sexually assaulting her while she was between the ages of seven and sixteen. She reported the abuse to the State Police at some point in 1996, but the police did not file charges, and she remained in the home. She did not alert any other authorities for another three decades.

In 2016, the complainant called the State Police to discuss a dispute with the defendant and his brothers over the inheritance of property from her father, who had recently died. This conversation led to her disclosing the abuse to a state trooper. The state trooper conducted an investigation, interviewed a number of witnesses, and recommended that prosecutors file charges. The Commonwealth eventually filed charges in 2018. Accordingly, the police arrested the defendant in 2018 and charged him as an adult with rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, and indecent assault for crimes he committed thirty years earlier when he was a minor.

The trial court denied various pre-trial motions. The defendant proceeded by way of jury trial, and the jury found him guilty. The trial court sentenced him to 4 - 8 years’ incarceration in state prison.

The Appeal

The defendant appealed, arguing that he should not have been prosecuted as an adult because he committed the crimes when he was a juvenile. Specifically, in the trial court and on direct appeal to the Superior Court, he argued only that the juvenile court had jurisdiction because he committed the crimes as a minor. The Superior Court affirmed, and the defendant sought review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the issue and granted his petition for allowance of appeal.

The Supreme Court, however, also affirmed. It found that the defendant was properly tried in adult court under the applicable statutes and that although his constitutional claims were interesting, he had waived those claims on appeal by failing to raise them in the trial court and Superior Court.

With respect to the statutory claim, the Supreme Court found that Pennsylvania law clearly directs that an adult who is prosecuted for crimes committed while a juvenile should be prosecuted as an adult in the Court of Common Pleas. The Court noted that the Juvenile Act conveyed limited jurisdiction to juvenile courts, the scope of which applies “exclusively to . . . [p]roceedings in which a child is alleged to be delinquent or dependent.” 42 Pa.C.S. §6303(a)(1) (emphasis added). The Act explicitly defines a “child” as an individual who “is under the age of 18 years” or “is under the age of 21 years who committed an act of delinquency before reaching the age of 18 years.” Id. § 6302.10

Thus, the Act plainly extends juvenile jurisdiction to offenders who committed an offense while under the age of eighteen only if they are prosecuted before turning twenty-one. Because the Court found no ambiguity in this definition, it found itself bound to abide by the letter of the statute. See 1 Pa.C.S. §1921(b). Further, the statutes provide that the juvenile court loses jurisdiction when a defendant turns 21. Accordingly, if the defendant’s argument were correct, then he could not be prosecuted at all because the juvenile court would not have jurisdiction, either.

The Court rejected the defendant’s other arguments. It found that he failed to present any evidence that the Commonwealth acted in bad faith by waiting to charge him, and that although he had raised a number of interesting constitutional challenges in the Supreme Court, he had failed to raise these challenges in the lower courts. Therefore, the Court found that he waived those claims by failing to raise them earlier.

The Court therefore denied the appeal. It did recommend that the legislature consider whether the system is really fair to adults who are prosecuted for crimes committed decades earlier when they were minors, but it found no real dispute that the statutory language directs such a result. The Court did suggest that it may be willing to consider a properly preserved challenge as to whether an adult defendant may be sentenced to prison for crimes committed as a juvenile, but it found that this case was not the right case for deciding that issue.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, VUFA, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

PA Superior Court: COVID Speedy Trial Rule Suspensions Are Absolute Even if the Prosecutors Took Two Years Off

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Malone, holding that the COVID-related suspensions of Pennsylvania’s speedy trial rules are absolute no matter how little the Commonwealth did to try to move a case forward during the suspension.

In Malone, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas dismissed the defendant’s aggravated assault and possession with the intent to deliver case due to a violation of Rule 600. The court found that the Commonwealth failed to bring the defendant to trial for nearly two years and that the Commonwealth had failed to act with due diligence during that period. The Philadelphia courts suspended Rule 600 from March 2020 to October 1, 2021 due to COVID, but the trial court ruled that the Commonwealth would be entitled to the benefit of the suspension only if the Commonwealth had acted with due diligence during the relevant time periods. Because it had not, the time still counted, and the court dismissed the charges.

What is Rule 600?

Rule 600 is a state court speedy trial rule which requires the Commonwealth tho bring a defendant to trial within 365 days from the filing of the criminal complaint. Unfortunately, Rule 600 in general has a lot of exceptions. Time not attributable to the negligence of the prosecution generally often does not count. For example, continuance requests from the defense, the unavailability of a judge to hear the case, or even a police officer’s failure to appear for a good reason may result in the time between two court dates being excluded from the 365 day limit. In other words, time between hearings that is not really the prosecution’s fault does not count so long as the prosecution acted with reasonable due diligence in attempting to move the case forward to trial.

In March 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court suspended Rule 600 as courts throughout the state shut down due to COVID. The Supreme Court lifted its suspension shortly thereafter, but it gave president judges for each county the authority to extend the suspension locally. Some counties, like York, began operating normally almost immediately. Others, like Philadelphia and Montgomery County, did not resume normal operations for nearly two years and are still struggling with COVID-related backlogs. Accordingly, Philadelphia’s president judge left the suspension in effect until October 1, 2021.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The issue in this case, therefore, was whether the general rule that the Commonwealth must act with due diligence in order for the time between court dates to not count trumps the speedy trial rule suspension or whether the suspension of the rule was absolute. In this case, the Superior Court ruled that the suspension was absolute and the Commonwealth had absolutely no obligation to do any work on its cases during the nearly two year period that Philadelphia suspended the operation of Rule 600. Therefore, the Superior Court reversed the decision of the trial judge and reinstated the charges. It seems reasonable to expect the prosecution to have monitored its cases and worked to get them ready during the shut downs, but the Superior Court has ruled that they had no obligation to do so.

The defendant will now again face trial in the Court of Common Pleas. Given that the case is now more than three years old, the Commonwealth will likely struggle to prosecute the defendant, but further litigation will follow.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire arguing before the PA Supreme Court

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

PA Superior Court Approves of Consolidation of Unrelated Drug Case With Drug Delivery Resulting in Death Case

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Shackelford, holding that the trial court properly allowed the Commonwealth to consolidate the defendant’s possession with the intent to deliver case with his drug delivery resulting in death case. Police executed a search warrant at the defendant’s house in order to investigate a drug delivery homicide, and when they did so, they found a significant quantity of drugs. The drugs obviously could not have caused the decedent’s death as the death occurred prior to the execution of the warrant, but the trial court allowed the Commonwealth to try the cases together. The Superior Court affirmed, holding that the discovery of drugs during the execution of the search warrant would have been admissible in the homicide prosecution. The Court also rejected the defendant’s suppression challenge, finding that a reliable confidential informant provided sufficient probable cause for police to obtain a search warrant.

Commonwealth v. ShackelFord

In April 2021, the decedent was found unresponsive on her bathroom floor. She died in the hospital a few hours later, and police quickly began investigating her death as a potential drug delivery resulting in death homicide. The coroner subsequently determined that the cause of the woman’s death was combined drug toxicity. In her house, detectives located, among other things, cocaine, heroin laced with fentanyl and tramadol, associated drug paraphernalia, and the woman's cellphone. A search of her cellphone revealed that on the night before her death, she had been communicating with a number ending in "7678.” The number was labeled in her phone contacts as "Jazz." Detectives identified the phone number as belonging to the defendant. Fortuitously for the police, investigators were already investigating the defendant for dealing drugs. Investigators found a text message thread between the woman and the defendant which included a request from her to buy drugs. The texts also included messages between the two outlining when and where they would meet.

Detectives spoke with a confidential informant, and the CI told them that the defendant was known to sell drugs. Police thereafter executed a search warrant at the defendant's home based on information from the confidential informant. The police found approximately $7,900 in U.S. currency, over 250 wax paper bags of packaged fentanyl mixed with heroin, over 80 grams of methamphetamine, and quantities of cocaine and marijuana. The defendant later admitted to selling drugs and selling specifically to the woman who died. The Commonwealth filed two sets of charges against the defendant. The first case charged drug delivery resulting in death and criminal use of a communication facility in April 2021. The second case charged possession with intent to deliver fentanyl, possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia for the contraband found in his home in August 2021.

The Commonwealth filed a motion to consolidate the cases and try them together. The defendant filed a motion to sever the cases and suppress the evidence found in his home, arguing that the police did not have probable cause for the search. The trial court heard the motions and denied both of them. In June 2022, the court held a consolidated jury trial on both cases. The defendant was found guilty of drug delivery resulting in death, criminal use of a communication facility, and two possession with intent to deliver charges. The trial court sentenced the defendant to an aggregate incarceration term of 11 – 25 years’ incarceration.

The Criminal Appeal

On appeal, the defendant raised two issues: (1) did the trial court err by failing to find that the search warrant lacked probable cause, and (2) did the trial court err by failing to order separate trials? In the first issue, the defendant argued that the search warrant was issued without probable cause, claiming that the CI’s claims were not credible. He argued that the trial court incorrectly decided the motion, and so all of the evidence obtained in the search should have been deemed inadmissible for trial.

The Superior Court’s standard of review on this issue is limited to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. At a suppression hearing, the Commonwealth must prove that it did not obtain the challenged evidence in violation of the defendant's rights. The prosecution must prove this by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence is the lowest burden of proof and requires the Commonwealth essentially to show that it is more likely than not that they did not violate the defendant’s rights. Further, in the absence of an allegation that the police lied in the search warrant, challenges to a search warrant are based solely on the information in the document's four corners. In determining probable cause, the courts utilize a totality of circumstances approach. Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances are reasonably known and from a trustworthy source and a prudent person of reasonable caution would believe there is a possibility that evidence of a crime could be found in the location to be searched.

The Superior Court agreed with the trial court that the warrant established probable cause. The court reasoned that past information from the CI in question led to two felony convictions. The court further noted that the CI had engaged in an undercover drug purchase from the defendant and that the police had conducted independent surveillance to corroborate the CI’s information. Therefore, the Superior Court agreed with the trial court's assessment that the CI was credible and the warrant contained probable cause. The court rejected the suppression challenge.

In addressing the second issue, the defendant argued that evidence that he had drugs in August 2021 had no relevance in a homicide prosecution for events that took place in April 2021. The defendant argued that evidence from one case would not otherwise be admissible in the other and was merely used to smear him as a drug dealer. The Commonwealth argued that the evidence that he was involved in drug sales just a few months later was relevant to show that he could have been engaged in drug sales in April.

In deciding whether to consolidate or sever two separate cases, a court must determine: (1) whether the evidence of each of the offenses would be admissible in a separate trial for the other; (2) whether such evidence is capable of separation by the jury so as to avoid the danger of confusion; and, if so, (3) whether the consolidation of offenses will unduly prejudice the defendant.

The Superior Court noted that the defendant’s argument only focused on the first aspect. The court determined that the evidence of crimes other than those in question may not be admitted solely to show a defendant's bad character or propensity to commit the crime. However, evidence of other crimes is admissible to demonstrate motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme, plan, or design embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to prove the others or the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial. Additionally, evidence of other crimes is admissible when such evidence is part of the history of the case and forms part of the natural development of the facts.

Here, the trial court had reasoned that the cases should not be severed because the cases proved identity, and the discovery of the drugs was linked to the investigation into the homicide, so the events were connected. The Superior Court agreed with the trial court’s opinion, finding that evidence of each offense would have been admissible in a separate trial for the other. Therefore, the Superior Court affirmed.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

PA Superior Court: Defendant Has Right to Attorney of Their Choice

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Lewis, holding that a trial court has the power to disqualify an attorney from representing a criminal defendant but only in the most extreme circumstances. The Superior Court determined that this was not such a case as the Commonwealth and court failed to show that the alleged misconduct of the attorney could not be remedied or that the Commonwealth could not receive a fair trial.

Therefore, the trial court violated the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel by removing the defendant’s chosen attorney. The Superior Court vacated the defendant’s subsequent conviction which the Commonwealth obtained while he was represented by a different attorney and remanded for a new trial.

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Lewis

One evening in 2018, the defendant barricaded himself in his residence. An Emergency Response Team ("ERT") was summoned to the scene and communicated with the defendant to get him to surrender. Shortly after midnight, the defendant began shooting out of his residence. Over the next six hours, the defendant fired at least 30 shots, including several that struck an armored vehicle operated by ERT. Just after 7 a.m., the defendant left his residence and surrendered to ERT members.

The Commonwealth subsequently charged the defendant with 12 counts of attempted homicide, 24 counts of aggravated assault, 21 counts of recklessly endangering another person, two counts of possessing an instrument of crime, and one count of institutional vandalism. The defendant was appointed a public defender but quickly became dissatisfied with them. In 2019, the defendant retained private counsel to represent him. Just before the trial in 2020, the defendant’s attorney allegedly supplied body camera footage from an ERT member to a local newsgroup that aired the footage. The attorney also gave an interview commenting negatively on the lead officer’s professionalism.

The Motion to Disqualify

The Commonwealth filed pre-trial motions with various requests. The motions included a request to disqualify the defendant’s attorney for supposedly unethical actions that violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. The trial court held a hearing to determine if it should disqualify the lawyer. The trial court concluded that the attorney’s conduct placed the fairness and integrity of the defendant's trial in jeopardy. The court claimed that the unethical behavior of the attorney was an attempt to taint the jury pool by putting out irrelevant, inadmissible information that a jury would never see. The judge further opined that the attorney’s actions must have been an attempt to force the Commonwealth into making a better plea offer. The trial court found that the conduct was so outrageous that a fair trial could not take place with the defendant being represented by the current attorney. The court therefore removed the attorney from the case over defense objection. The defendant retained new counsel and proceeded with a jury trial. 

In 2021, a jury convicted the defendant of two counts of attempted homicide, 13 counts of aggravated assault, seven counts of recklessly endangering another person, two counts of possessing an instrument of crime, two counts of criminal mischief, one count of terroristic threats, and one count of institutional vandalism. In early 2022, the trial court sentenced him to 27.5 to 57 years of incarceration.

The Superior Court Appeal 

The defendant filed an appeal raising only one issue: he challenged the disqualification of his original private counsel. The Commonwealth argued that the standard of review is an abuse of discretion standard. An abuse of discretion standard is a difficult standard to meet that gives great deference to the trial court. Only when the law is misapplied or the result is unreasonable can a defendant win with this level of review. The Superior Court determined their review to be plenary, which means they can review the question of law without giving deference to the trial court and make their own conclusion.

The Superior Court began its analysis by reiterating that while the appeal necessarily focuses on the defense attorney’s actions, it is the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel that is at stake. It is unquestioned that a criminal defendant has an absolute right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Furthermore, a defendant has a constitutional right to secure counsel of his choice. If the trial court violates the defendant's right to proceed with an attorney of his choosing, he is entitled to a new trial because prejudice is presumed.

At the same time, the trial courts have the power to disqualify a defendant’s attorney. A court may do so only when it is absolutely essential. In determining when such extreme action may be necessary, the courts have used a two-step approach: a court must find that (1) there is no other remedy available for the attorney’s violations, and (2) there is no other way to ensure the Commonwealth's right to a fair trial.

Here, the Superior Court disagreed with the trial court on both counts. First, the Superior Court examined the defense attorney’s conduct. It concluded that the record supported the trial court's factual findings, and the defendant did not challenge those findings. The attorney arguably violated the Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct (“Pa.R.P.C.”) rule 3.6 by making public statements that had a substantial likelihood of causing prejudice to the proceeding. However, a trial court cannot disqualify an attorney solely for a rule violation, and it also may not do so merely to punish the attorney for the violation.

The Superior Court found two errors with the trials court’s ruling. First, the court found that the trial court’s focus on the defense attorney’s past behavior indicated that the disqualification was punitive. Second, the court noted that the trial court focused on the outrageousness of the attorney’s conduct, not on whether it would continue and, in a way, prejudice the Commonwealth at trial. The Superior Court cited testimony showing that there were three pre-trial motions before the one to disqualify the attorney. In those three motions, there was a mutual agreement between the Commonwealth and the defense attorney to stop making public statements and that the body camera footage or officer disciplinary history was irrelevant to trial unless the Commonwealth brought it up themselves. Therefore, the Superior Court concluded there was a remedy to the attorney’s conduct and that the attorney had agreed not to violate any other rules.

Finally, the Superior Court looked at whether or not the prior conduct was enough to taint the jury pool and deny the Commonwealth a fair trial. The court concluded that two local media broadcasts were not pervasive enough to justify a presumption that the jury could not fulfill its duties fairly. The Superior Court also cited testimony from jury selection to emphasize the point. Jury selection showed that during the entire jury voir dire, only one potential juror had previous knowledge of the events, and that knowledge was vague at best.

Therefore, the Commonwealth was able to receive a fair trial, and the violation of the attorney’s actions was able to be remedied. The Superior Court vacated the defendant’s judgment of sentence and remanded for a new trial. This is an important case as it shows that courts should not be quick to interfere with the defendant’s decision of counsel and may do so only when absolutely necessary.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.