PA Supreme Court: Philly Prosecutors Can't Try You Separately For DUI and Related Traffic Violations

Philadelphia DUI Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Perfetto, holding that Philadelphia prosecutors may not file more serious misdemeanor or felony charges against a defendant who has already been tried in traffic court for summary offenses arising from the same incident. This means that if you were arrested by the police, charged with DUI, and also received traffic tickets like a ticket for reckless driving and the traffic case has been resolved, you cannot be prosecuted for the DUI. This happens frequently in Philadelphia because traffic court cases go to trial much more quickly than criminal trials. Although this may seem like a loophole to some, it is actually a question of fundamental fairness as prosecutors simply should not be allowed to charge a defendant in multiple different courts for the same conduct. Doing so requires the defendant to take off multiple days from work, pay more in attorney’s fees, and potentially receive separate sentences for the same incident. This is an extremely significant decision because it could result in the dismissal of numerous cases.

The facts of Commonwealth v. Perfetto

On July 3, 2014, the defendant was operating a motor vehicle in Philadelphia. The police stopped him and issued him a citation because he was driving without his lights on as required by 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 4302. The officer then determined that the defendant was also driving under the influence of a controlled substance. In addition to issuing the traffic tickets, they subsequently arrested him and charged him with DUI. In Philadelphia, when someone is issued a traffic citation and charged with a more serious criminal offense at the same time, the cases are not usually joined together. Instead, defendants have traditionally had to resolve the traffic citations in traffic court and the criminal case in the Philadelphia Municipal Court.

Prior to the resolution of the criminal charges, the defendant was found guilty, in absentia, on the summary traffic offense in the traffic court. The traffic court is a division of the Philadelphia Municipal Court. After his conviction, the defendant had a preliminary hearing for his DUI charges and he was held for court on all charges. In Philadelphia, if a defendant is charged with a felony, he will have a preliminary hearing in Municipal Court. If the court determines there is enough evidence for a case to go to trial, then the defendant will be held for court, and the case will be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas.

Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 110

At his trial, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the DUI charge against him because he had already been found guilty of the traffic offense. His defense attorney argued that 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 110 ( “Rule 110”) prohibits subsequent prosecutions that arise from the same criminal episode when the defendant has previously been convicted in the same court. Thus, he argued that because the defendant was found guilty in Municipal Court - Traffic Division for his traffic offense, and his traffic offense was part of the same incident as his alleged DUI, the Municipal Court - Criminal Division should dismiss the DUI case.

The trial court heard oral arguments on the defendant’s motion. The Commonwealth argued that Rule 110 should not apply because summary traffic offenses must be tried in the traffic division of the Philadelphia Municipal Court. Further, because the traffic division lacked the jurisdiction to hear the DUI charge, the two charges could not be tried at the same time. In other words, the Commonwealth argued that for all intents and purposes, the traffic division is a separate court and thus Rule 110 did not apply to the defendant’s case and his motion should be denied. At the conclusion of the arguments, the trial court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the DUI charges against him.

The Commonwealth’s Appeal to the Superior Court

The Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On appeal, a divided en banc panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court’s decision. The Superior Court engaged in a complex and convoluted jurisdictional analysis of Philadelphia’s Municipal Court and held that defendants who are charged with a traffic offense in Philadelphia must have the traffic offenses tried in the traffic division of the Municipal Court, regardless of whether the defendant is also charged with non-traffic offenses. Thus, according to the Superior Court, Rule 110 did not apply when a defendant was previously convicted or acquitted of a traffic offense. The defendant filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the appeal.

What is Rule 110?

 Rule 110 is the codified version of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Campana. The Campana Court held that the Double Jeopardy clause requires the Commonwealth to bring all known charges arising from a single criminal episode against a defendant in one proceeding. The Pennsylvania legislature wrote this into law in Rule 110.

How do you win a Rule 110 motion?

In order to win a Rule 110 motion and obtain the dismissal of charges based on the existence of a prior prosecution, the defendant must be able to show four things. The defense must show:

First, the former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or a conviction.

Second, the current prosecution was based on the same criminal conduct or arose from the same criminal episode as the former prosecution.

Third, the prosecution was aware of all the charges when the former prosecution commenced.

Finally, all of the charges were within the same jurisdictional district.

If all of these requirements are met then the Commonwealth is prohibited from prosecuting the defendant.

The Commonwealth Cannot Prosecute You Twice If You’ve Already Been Convicted of Summary Offenses From The Same incident

In a divided opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the Superior Court’s decision. The majority opinion found that this was a straightforward case of statutory interpretation and that the language of Rule 110 is clear and unambiguous. The Court found that all four elements of Rule 110 were met. Specifically, the defendant was found guilty for driving without lights, his DUI case arose out of the same episode as his driving without lights conviction, the prosecutor was aware of this conviction, and finally, his traffic conviction occurred in the same judicial district as his DUI case. Because all of the elements of Rule 110 were met, the Commonwealth was barred from prosecuting the defendant’s DUI case due to the prior traffic case.

Additionally, the majority opinion found that there was no rule that prohibited the Commonwealth from prosecuting the defendant’s traffic offense with his DUI charge. The Commonwealth’s argument that traffic cases must be prosecuted in the traffic division of Municipal Court was not accurate because the Commonwealth had the option of trying the defendant for the summary traffic citations in the criminal case. The majority opinion also reiterated that a summary offense can trigger Double Jeopardy protections, even though the consequences are usually less severe than those of a misdemeanor or a felony. Finally, the majority opinion acknowledged that this will cause problems for the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, but nonetheless the Commonwealth is still precluded from prosecuting the defendant’s case due to Rule 110 and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. .

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers Zak Goldstein and Demetra Mehta

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 and other successful results in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, DUI, and Murder. 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 Finds Speculation Insufficient to Prove Mens Rea at Preliminary Hearing

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Wyatt, holding that the trial court properly dismissed involuntary manslaughter, homicide by vehicle, and related charges stemming from a fatal motor vehicle accident where the Commonwealth was able to show only that the defendant caused the accident without explaining how or why. The Superior Court held that the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas correctly granted the defendant’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (also known as a Motion to Quash in Philadelphia) because the Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case of the requisite mens rea. This is an excellent case which illustrates that the preliminary hearing is not a mere formality and that the Commonwealth must prove each element of an offense by a preponderance of the evidence. This includes a showing that the defendant acted with criminal intent where required by statute. It is not enough for the Commonwealth to simply prove that something bad happened and that the defendant was involved.

The Facts of Wyatt 

In Wyatt, the defendant was driving a tractor-trailer southbound on Interstate 380. At around 10 am, the defendant’s truck crossed the median separating the north- and southbound lanes and crashed into oncoming traffic, causing the deaths of three people and serious injuries to five other people. The Commonwealth eventually charged the defendant with aggravated assault by vehicle, homicide by vehicle, involuntary manslaughter, recklessly endangering another person, and other motor vehicle code violations. The defendant waived his preliminary hearing, but he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus when the case reached the Court of Common Pleas.

What is a petition for writ of habeas corpus?

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is the mechanism by which a defendant may ask the trial court to dismiss the charges prior to trial. It is essentially a motion to dismiss which asks the Court of Common Pleas judge to review the notes of testimony from the preliminary hearing and determine that the magisterial district justice in the counties or Municipal Court judge in Philadelphia improperly held the defendant for court on some or all of the charges. The Commonwealth may respond by introducing additional evidence at the hearing on the motion, but most motions rely primarily on the notes of testimony from the preliminary hearing.  

In some cases, the petition for writ of habeas corpus results in the preliminary hearing taking place in the Court of Common Pleas instead of at the magisterial district justice level. In Philadelphia, it is unusual to waive the preliminary hearing. Outside of Philadelphia, however, it is not unusual in a serious case to waive the preliminary hearing at the magisterial district court and then litigate a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Common Pleas. Where the parties have agreed that the defendant may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus after a waiver of the preliminary hearing, the Court of Common Pleas judge will then essentially conduct a preliminary hearing, and the defense may ask the judge to dismiss the charges. That is what happened in this case.

In Philadelphia, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is more commonly called a Motion to Quash. It is essentially the appeal of the Municipal Court Judge’s ruling that the District Attorney’s Office met its burden at the preliminary hearing. The defendant may not argue at a hearing on a Motion to Quash or Habeas Petition that the witnesses were lying, but the defense may argue that the evidence was insufficient and that charges should be dismissed.  

The habeas hearing

At the hearing on the habeas motion, the Commonwealth called the affiant, a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper. The Commonwealth proceeded under a theory that the defendant had acted recklessly in crossing into the wrong lane of traffic and causing the accident. Under Pennsylvania law, the Commonwealth cannot prove the mens rea of recklessness solely by showing that an accident occurred and the defendant may have been to blame. Instead, a person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and intent of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.

The majority of the charges in this case such as homicide by vehicle and involuntary manslaughter required the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant at least acted recklessly. At the hearing on the motion, the Commonwealth argued that the defendant must have acted recklessly because the investigators were able to rule out most potential causes of the accident. For example, the trooper testified that the weather was fine and there was no evidence of a mechanical failure. The trooper also testified that the defendant had potentially received but not responded to text messages and that he had unrestrained dogs in the cabin of the truck. Other evidence showed that the defendant was not speeding, had not been driving erratically, and that he did not have any medical incidents and was not eating food or drinking at the time. The scene also did not reveal braking or skid-marks.

Accordingly, the Commonwealth argued that the lack of bad weather and mechanical failures, combined with the fact that the defendant had two dogs in the cabin, crossed into the other lane of traffic, and had potentially received text messages, circumstantially gave rise to an inference that the defendant must have acted recklessly. Without any concrete explanation as to why the defendant crossed into the wrong lane, the trial court found that prosecutors were merely guessing at the defendant’s intent and that they had failed to prove that the defendant acted recklessly - meaning they could not prove that he consciously disregarded a known risk.  

The Superior Court Appeal

The Commonwealth appealed the dismissal of the charges to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of the charges on appeal. The court found that neither negligence nor the mere occurrence of an accident, even a fatal accident, without more, is sufficient to prove recklessness even at the preliminary hearing or habeas petition level. There was simply no evidence as to what caused the accident. The Commonwealth proved only that the defendant caused a tragic accident by crossing into the wrong lane of traffic; it completely failed to prove what caused him to do that. Therefore, the Commonwealth was unable to meet its burden of proving that the defendant did it with recklessness or any other level of criminal intent. Accordingly, the Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of the charges.  

Does the Commonwealth have to prove a mens rea at the preliminary hearing?

There is often a rush to prosecute someone who may have caused a fatal accident solely because of the headlines and other media attention that this type of accident may receive. This case, fortunately, shows that automobile accidents generally do not give rise to criminal charges where the Commonwealth cannot show that something more than a true accident occurred. Crimes require both that the defendant did something and usually that the defendant acted with criminal intent, and this requirement applies both at the trial level and at a preliminary hearing. This case re-establishes that accidents are not always criminal and that the Commonwealth must provide some evidence of each element of an offense even with the reduced burden it must meet at the preliminary hearing or habeas hearing. It also illustrates the importance of speaking with an attorney prior to giving a statement to law enforcement. In this case, the defendant did not say anything to police that could have later been used against him. Had he admitted to texting, not paying attention, or driving while tired, the outcome of the case could have been very different.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Defense Lawyers Demetra Mehta and 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. In just the past few months, we have won motions to suppress in cases involving drug possession, gun possession, and Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”). We have also successfully obtained full acquittals, dismissals, and other successful results in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Possession with the Intent to Deliver, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Homicide. 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 Limits Collateral Estoppel Defense

Zak Goldstein - Criminal Defense Lawyer

Pennsylvania law provides a potential defense to some criminal charges called collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel may apply to bar a second trial in limited circumstances where the defendant has been acquitted of closely related charges in a first trial. The doctrine is somewhat limited in Pennsylvania because juries are not asked to provide an explanation for what they think happened; instead, jurors simply find a defendant guilty or not guilty of charges. The defense may then argue that a re-trial should be barred because a defendant has been acquitted of charges which required the same conduct with which the defendant is again charged in order for the jury to find the defendant guilty in a second trial.

The recent Pennsylvania Superior Court case of Commonwealth v. Winchester provides an example of this potential defense. In Commonwealth v. Winchester, the PA Superior Court found that the Commonwealth was not collaterally estopped from retrying a defendant for human trafficking charges after an acquittal for related robbery and theft charges because the human trafficking charges were significantly different from the related robbery and theft charges.

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Winchester

In Winchester, prosecutors alleged that the defendant contacted the complainant on backpage.com. The complainant offered sexual services through an advertisement on this website. The defendant then also contacted the complainant through text messages to set up an appointment. When the defendant arrived at the complainant’s apartment, he was let inside. The complainant was wearing a robe when she answered the door.

When the complainant went to take off her robe, the defendant pulled out a gun and pointed it at her face. The defendant then threatened her with a weapon, zip-tied her, and stole $2,700 from her. The defendant then told her that she could have her money back if she worked for him. The defendant then left her residence and told her he would return by 11:30. After he left, the complainant was able to free herself, and she called the police. The defendant then returned and was promptly arrested. When he was arrested, zip ties were found in his car matching those used to restrain the victim.

The Commonwealth filed a criminal information charging the defendant with robbery, theft by unlawful taking, terroristic threats, trafficking in individuals, and attempted involuntary servitude. At the trial, the complainant testified to the above-stated facts. The defendant also testified. He testified that he and the complainant had a prior relationship and that his communications with her, after finding her on the website, was an effort to confirm his own suspicion that the complainant was prostituting herself. The defendant testified that he called her a “whore,” which upset the complainant. This, arguably, was the reason why the complainant made up these allegations against him. The defendant denied binding her, robbing her, or telling her that he would “pimp” her out. He also testified that the zip ties in his car were related to his construction work.

Following the trial, the jury found the defendant not guilty of robbery, theft by unlawful taking, and terroristic threats. The jury did not reach a verdict on trafficking in individuals and attempted involuntary servitude. On June 5, 2017, the defendant filed a motion for dismissal, arguing that the Commonwealth intended to retry him on the charges of trafficking in individuals and attempted involuntary servitude, but the trial court should apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel and dismiss the remaining charges. A hearing was held on June 26, 2017. On August 14, 2017, the court issued an order granting the defendant’s dismissal motion. The Commonwealth then filed a timely appeal.

What is Collateral Estoppel?

The doctrine of collateral estoppel is a part of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against Double Jeopardy. It is important to note that the collateral estoppel clause does not automatically bar subsequent prosecution of a defendant. It only bars the re-litigation of a particular issue that has already been decided by a court. What this means is that if an issue of law, fact, or evidentiary ruling has already been decided by a prior court order, the issue cannot be re-litigated in a future lawsuit.

In Pennsylvania, courts will apply the collateral estoppel doctrine if the following threshold requirements were met: 1) the issues in the two actions are sufficiently similar and sufficiently material to justify invoking the doctrine; 2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; and 3) a final judgment on the specific issue in question was issued in the first action. For collateral estoppel purposes, a final judgment includes any prior adjudication of an issue in another action that is sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect. If the previous adjudication was based on a resolution of an issue in a manner favorable to the defendant with respect to a remaining charge, the Commonwealth is precluded from attempting to re-litigate that issue in an effort to resolve it in a contrary way at a future trial.

This sounds confusing, and it can be. To give a simple example of how collateral estoppel would prevent the Commonwealth from retrying a defendant, let’s assume that a defendant is charged with murder, aggravated assault, and simple assault. The facts of this hypothetical case are that a defendant beats a victim to death with his bare hands. Let’s further assume that after a trial, the jury is unable to reach a verdict on the murder charge, but finds the defendant not guilty of the simple assault charge. Because of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the Commonwealth would be precluded from prosecuting the defendant on the murder charge because he was found not guilty of the simple assault charge. The reason is because the simple assault was a constituent element of the homicide charge. As such, there was already a finding that the defendant did not assault the victim and consequently the Commonwealth would be precluded from retrying the defendant on the homicide charge.

PA Superior Court Rejects Collateral Estoppel Defense Because of Differences in Statutes

Here, the Pennsylvania Superior Court overturned the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Superior Court concluded that the defendant’s acquittal of the robbery and theft charges did not negate the necessary elements to potentially convict him of the involuntary servitude or trafficking charges. In other words, a jury could believe that the defendant did not rob the complainant, but he did intend to force her into the sex trade. In making its decision, the Superior Court reviewed the trafficking and involuntary servitude statutes. Based on this review, the Superior Court held that the defendant’s acquittal of the robbery and theft charges did not preclude a subsequent prosecution of the trafficking and involuntary servitude offenses because robbing or stealing from her were not predicate elements of these respective charges. In other words, the defendant could have been trafficking her without robbing her or stealing from her. Therefore, the Commonwealth can retry the defendant on these remaining charges.   

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 and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Attempted Murder. 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: Reaching for a Gun While Fleeing from a Theft Is Probably a First-Degree Felony Robbery

Philadelphia Robbery Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Ouch, holding that the Commonwealth produced sufficient evidence of first-degree felony Robbery at the preliminary hearing where the Commonwealth showed that the defendant committed a retail theft and then reached for a gun after being stopped by the store’s loss prevention officer. The court found that although there was some evidence that the loss prevention officer may not have actually seen the gun, the trial court improperly dismissed the first-degree felony charge after erroneously weighing the evidence and resolving conflicts in the testimony. Instead, because the Commonwealth receives the benefit of any reasonable inferences at a preliminary hearing, the court should have accepted the security guard’s testimony that the defendant tried to pull a gun on him despite video evidence which was arguably to the contrary. Further, the focus of the inquiry at the preliminary hearing is on the likely intent of the defendant, not the subjective belief of the complainant.

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Ouch

A Philadelphia police officer responded to a radio call for a robbery in progress at a local market. Upon arrival, the complainant and a uniformed security officer both stated that an Asian male described as 5’6 and 150 pounds in his 20’s or 30’s wearing a gray Phillies hat, gray hooded sweatshirt with white design on the front was attempting to shoplift seafood. Witnesses testified that when store security attempted to stop the male in the doorway, the male attempted to pull a firearm from his waistband. The security guard smacked the man’s hand away, and the man fled the parking lot in a white Toyota Corolla. This incident was caught on camera. A detective then viewed the video of the incident and immediately recognized the defendant. The defendant was subsequently arrested on an arrest warrant by Philadelphia Police.

The defendant later appeared in court for his preliminary hearing. The Commonwealth called the security guard to testify as a witness at the preliminary hearing. He testified that at the direction of his manager, he stopped “an Asian guy” whom he described as 5’5 and wearing a gray shirt, hat, sneakers, and blue jeans on suspicion of shoplifting. The Commonwealth then played a video of the incident. The security officer identified on the video the point at which the defendant reached for his waistband. When asked what he did in response to this, the security officer replied “[p]ushed back off…because he reached for a gun so I said, I told the manager, ‘we ain’t dying for this.’”

On cross-examination, the security guard acknowledged that although he saw the defendant reach for something, he did not know what it was. He further conceded that when he saw the defendant reach for his waist, he did not know what he was reaching for because he had taken his eyes off of him. Additionally, the defendant never brandished a weapon nor pointed a gun in front of him. Based on the Superior Court’s opinion, the only time that the security guard saw the gun was when the defendant had his back to him as he was fleeing the market.  

At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge held the defendant for all charges except for robbery in the first degree. The court instead downgraded the robbery charge to robbery as a felony of the third degree. The Commonwealth filed a motion to re-file the charge of robbery graded as a first-degree felony. The defendant’s defense attorney filed a motion to quash seeking the dismissal of all charges based on a lack of evidence.

At a hearing on the two motions, a Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge denied the Commonwealth’s request to re-file the charge of first-degree Robbery, but the judge permitted the Commonwealth to charge the defendant with Robbery as a second-degree felony. The motions judge opined that the Commonwealth did not produce any evidence that the defendant brandished or pointed the gun at either of the witnesses. The Commonwealth then filed a timely appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, arguing that the motions court erred in concluding that it did not present sufficient evidence to show that the defendant placed the security guard in fear of immediate serious bodily injury.

What is the difference between Robbery as a first-degree felony and second-degree felony?

In general, Robbery as a first-degree felony is much more serious than Robbery as a felony of the second or third degrees. When Robbery is a first-degree felony, it becomes a crime of violence under Pennsylvania law and therefore a “strike” offense which could trigger a significant mandatory minimum of a decade or more for a defendant who has been convicted of other strike offenses in the past. A conviction for robbery as a second or third degree felony, however, does not trigger a mandatory minimum and calls for a much lesser sentence under the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines. The main difference between Robbery as a felony of the first degree and Robbery as a felony of the second degree is that first-degree felony Robbery requires evidence that the defendant caused, attempted to cause, or put the victim in fear of serious bodily injury during the commission of a theft. This typically involves the use of a weapon such as a gun or knife. Robbery as a second degree, however, only requires evidence that the defendant caused, attempted to cause, or put the victim in fear of bodily injury, which is less than serious bodily injury. The fear of bodily injury could come from a verbal threat, shove, or punch. Thus, Robbery as a felony of the second degree is easier for the Commonwealth to prove, and less serious, than Robbery as a felony of the first degree.

What Happens at a Preliminary Hearing?

Preliminary hearings are frequently misunderstood by defendants with no prior contacts with the criminal justice system. In Philadelphia, a defendant will only have a preliminary hearing if they are charged with a felony. Further, the preliminary hearing is not a trial. This means that the purpose is not to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. Instead, the purpose of the preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for a case to go to trial. Specifically, in order for a case to proceed beyond the preliminary hearing, the judge must make a determination that a crime occurred and that the accused is probably the perpetrator of that crime. Consequently, the burden of proof is much lower for the Commonwealth at a preliminary hearing than it is at trial. At a preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth must only establish a prima facie case that the defendant was the one who committed said crime. At a trial, however, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. Additionally, all reasonable inferences are given to the Commonwealth, and the evidence must be read in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth’s case.

Preliminary hearings can be very frustrating because credibility is also not an issue. In other words, a judge is not supposed to take into consideration how believable the witness is. Rather, the judge is supposed to make a determination based on the record to see if the Commonwealth has put forth enough evidence to go forward with its case. Consequently, when in court, when attorneys argue about the charges following the preliminary hearing, they are usually fighting about whether or not the Commonwealth has established all of the elements of the particular crimes charged. If the court finds that the Commonwealth has met its burden, then a defendant will be “held for court,” which means that he or she will have to face trial or litigate motions. It is important to remember that just because a defendant has been held for court does not mean the defendant has been found guilty. Although preliminary hearings do not allow the defense to challenge the credibility of witnesses, they are still extremely important hearings because they allow for the potential of having charges dismissed or downgraded when the Commonwealth does not have sufficient evidence and for cross-examining witnesses under oath. The record from the preliminary hearing will often turn out to be very valuable later either at trial or at a motion to suppress hearing. For a much more detailed analysis of what happens at a preliminary hearing, please see our blog “What is a Preliminary Hearing? What Happens After a Preliminary Hearing?” https://goldsteinmehta.com/blog/what-happens-at-the-preliminary-hearing.

Superior Court Holds Defendant for Court on First-Degree Felony Robbery

 The Superior Court found that the lower courts erred when they discharged the first-degree robbery charge. The Superior Court held that its review of the evidence, when viewing it in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and accepted as true, found that there was sufficient evidence to hold the defendant for trial on the first-degree robbery charge. According to the Superior Court, the security guard’s testimony that the defendant “reached for a gun” and his utterance of “we ain’t dying for this” was sufficient to establish the requisite elements of first-degree robbery. As stated above, according to the Commonwealth’s witness, the defendant did not brandish a gun at him and he did not see what the defendant reached for during their interaction. Further, the security guard did not even see a gun until after the defendant had turned his back to him as he was fleeing the market. Nonetheless, despite all of these deficiencies, the Superior Court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for first-degree robbery and the defendant will now have to go to trial on that charge, as well.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Philadelphia Criminal 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, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, and Attempted Murder. 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.