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.

Attorney Clemens’s Client Acquitted of VUFA (Gun) Charges

Defense Attorney Thomas C. Clemens

Philadelphia criminal defense attorney recently won a full acquittal for his client in a case involving firearms charges. In Commonwealth v. A. C.-O., prosecutors charged the client with various offenses under the uniform firearms act (VUFA offenses) for allegedly possessing a firearm in a vehicle without a license to carry. Fortunately, A.C.-O. retained Attorney Clemens, and Attorney Clemens took the case to trial.

In the case, police claimed that the client and multiple other men were in a car in the Frankford section of Philadelphia when the police stopped the car on suspicion of a traffic violation. The client was in the backseat of the car along with three other men, and the officers testified that they saw a gun underneath one of the other occupant’s feet. The police instructed everyone to get out of the car, and as the client was getting out, he took his backpack off and placed it on the floor of the car. The police immediately grabbed the backpack, searched it, and found a gun inside it. Unsurprisingly, they arrested the client and charged him with VUFA offenses for illegal possession of the gun in the backpack.

A.C.-O. retained Attorney Clemens, and Attorney Clemens took the case to trial. During trial, Attorney Clemens cross-examined the police officers on numerous inconsistencies in the various police reports regarding the locations of the various males in the car, as well as the chaotic scene at the time of the arrest.  Despite the police officers’ unwavering testimony that A. C.-O. was the individual with the gun in his backpack,  Attorney Clemens raised reasonable doubt as to whether A.C.-O. had ever even touched the backpack, and A. C.-O. was eventually acquitted of all charges. Given the full acquittal, A.C.-O. has the right to an expungement of the arrest record, and he will not have to serve any time in prison as a result of the arrest.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Criminal Justice Center in Philadelphia

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.

PA Superior Court: Trial Court May Grant New Trial in Criminal Case Sua Sponte

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Becher, recognizing that a trial court may grant a new trial to a defendant on its own even after a conviction. The Superior Court, however, reversed the grant of the new trial in this case because the error relied upon by the trial court in granting the new trial was not significant enough to justify such an extreme measure. This case is helpful for the defense in that it reaffirms the ability of the trial judge to grant a new trial when an egregious error has occurred, but it was not good for this defendant as this particular defendant had his grant of a new trial reversed.

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Becher

The defendant, three of his cousins, and a friend went to a strip club. There were members of a motorcycle club at the strip club who started an altercation with an intoxicated person and beat him up outside of the club. One of the defendant’s cousins taunted the club members for beating up an intoxicated person. The cousin and a club member started to fight but were quickly separated. Another cousin entered the club to grab the defendant. He was unaware of any altercations. At that time, the two remaining cousins reinitiated the fight. The defendant emerged from the club, observed the physical altercation, drew his gun, and struck one of the club members with it. The defendant then dropped the gun, and a melee ensued. During the struggle, the defendant was shot, recovered the gun himself, and shot two club members.

The Issue at Trial

At trial, three motorcycle club members testified that during the fight, the defendant’s cousin kept yelling that she was going to get her cousin and have him “smoke” them. After the Commonwealth had witnesses testify to this threat, the defendant's lawyer objected on hearsay grounds to the admission of the cousin’s threats. The trial court overruled the objection. The Commonwealth referred to the cousin's threats in closing arguments, and the trial court gave the jury a cautionary instruction. The trial court instructed the jury not to use the statements against the defendant as proof of his intent.

A jury found the defendant guilty of third-degree murder, finding he did not act in self-defense. The defendant’s lawyer filed a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. At sentencing, the trial court ruled that it would grant the defendant a new trial for a different reason. The trial court found that a new trial was necessary in the interests of justice because the testimony of the cousin’s threats was blatant and inadmissible hearsay. The trial court determined that it should have precluded the threats. Alternatively, if the statements were not hearsay, they were still unfairly prejudicial and should not have been admitted. Therefore, the trial court granted the defendant a new trial sua sponte.

The Appeal

The Commonwealth filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that the trial court abused its discretion in sua sponte granting a new trial to the defendant because none of its reasons supported taking such an extreme measure.

The Superior Court agreed. The Court recognized that a trial court may grant a new trial sua sponte in the interests of justice. The ability to do so, however, is limited. Generally, a court may only do so when there has been some kind of egregious error in the proceedings. Additionally, the standard that must be met depends now whether a party to the proceedings has recognized and preserved the error. When a party recognizes an error but fails to preserve that error, there must be an exceedingly clear error of a constitutional or structural nature. The result must be a manifest injustice that amounts to severely depriving a party's liberty interest. Because the defendant’s attorney was aware of and objected to the threats at some point during the trial, the Superior Court reviewed the grant of a new trial under this higher standard. The lawyer had objected but not moved for a mistrial.

First, the Superior Court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the threat was blatant, inadmissible hearsay. Instead, the threat had been admitted for a proper purpose. The threat was not used to prove the defendant’s state of mind but instead to tell the whole story of events. Further, a threat to do something is not necessarily a statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Instead, it is more of a present sense impression in that it is a statement about what someone intends to do. In this case, the witness intended to have the defendant commit the shooting.

The Superior Court also rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the statement was more prejudicial than probative. The Court found both that the statement was relevant, that it was not unfairly prejudicial, and that the trial court prevented any unfair prejudice by giving the jury a cautionary instruction that it should not hold the statement against the defendant. Therefore, the Court concluded that trial court erred in granting a new trial. The errors cited by the trial court were not actually errors, and even if they were, they were not big enough to justify a sua sponte grant of a new trial.

Therefore, the Superior Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the defendant a new trial sua sponte. The Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded it to hear the motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence argument. The case obviously does not help this particular defendant, but it does reaffirm that where an error is egregious enough, a court retains the inherent authority to order a new trial in order to fix that error.

Facing criminal charges? We can help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys

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.